It is a historical fact that the Christian church did not eradicate pagan Christmas customs, but it rather embraced and incorporated the practices by giving them a “Christian” meaning. Listen to this quote from the publishers of Life, in “The Pageantry of Christmas,” on page 10: “The followers of Mithras, a Persian sun-god whose cult was brought to Rome by returning legionnaires and became the chief rival of Christianity, celebrated December 25 as Dies Solis Invicti Nati (“Birthday of the Unconquered Sun”). The Romans themselves had long celebrated the solstice season as the Saturnalia, honoring Saturn, the god of agriculture…The exchange of gifts became an important part of the festivities [of Saturnalia]. They were simple at first – wax candles or clay dolls – but they slowly grew more elaborate. Christians began absorbing these old customs and infusing them with Christian meaning in order to help spread the faith. Many Church fathers considered the method dangerous…

“But most of the Christian missionaries who moved into Central and Western Europe as the Roman Empire crumbled, followed the advice of [pope] Gregory the Great. He wrote in 597 that they should not try to put down pagan customs ‘upon the sudden,’ but adapt them ‘to the praise of God.’

“In the North, at the Christmas season, the missionaries found the pagan adherents of the gods Woden and Thor battling the winter’s evil darkness with huge bonfires. In Central Europe, they found the belief that at the death of the old sun, witches and fiery demons came to earth to destroy the fertility of the New Year, and could be dissuaded by presents. In Britain, they found Druids paying tribute to the victory of evergreens over winter’s darkness. The missionaries, heeding Gregory the Great’s advice, made no effort to ‘cut off’ the ‘evil customs.’ As a result, many of them survive as cherished Christmas traditions of today.”


[9] Did you know that the early Christians believed that Jesus was crucified on March 25th (according to the Julian Calendar, that is) and that they also believed that this was the very same day that He was conceived in Mary’s womb about thirty-four years earlier?  Apparently, it seemed most fitting to them that the first day of Christ’s earthly mission be the same day as His last, thereby connecting the mystery of the Incarnation with that of the Redemption.  As a result, Christians celebrated March 25th as the Feast of the Annunciation – which is a commemoration that still continues today.  And since December 25th falls exactly nine months after the Feast of the Annunciation, it seemed the most natural day on which to celebrate Christ’s birth.

Answer: This belief comes from Hippolytus of Rome, this came about in the 3rd century A.D. practically 200 years after Jesus and the disciples. Now The extra-biblical evidence from the first and second century is equally spare: "There is no mention of birth celebrations in the writings of early Christian writers such as Irenaeus (c. 130–200) or Tertullian (c. 160–225). Origen of Alexandria (c. 165–264) goes so far as to mock Roman celebrations of birth anniversaries, dismissing them as “pagan” practices—a strong indication that Jesus’ birth was not marked with similar festivities at that place and time. As far as we can tell, Christmas was not celebrated at all at this point." (Article, How December 25th Became Christmas, by Andrew McGowan, emphasis added).

This argument claims that all Christians celebrated the Birth of Christ at this time but one can see that this is not true. Around the year 192, Clement of Alexandria suggested that Jesus was born on January 6.There were, however many speculations in the 2nd century about the date of Christ's birth. Clement of Alexandria, towards its close, mentions several such, and condemns them as superstitions.

Now Hippolytus of Rome,suggested that Jesus was born on December 25. Hippolytus was convinced that the first day of creation was March 25 (corresponding to the first day of Spring in the Julian calendar). From there, he speculated that March 25 was also the day on which Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit in Mary’s womb. Is this grounded in the Bible or mere speculation? That's all this is, mere speculation. This cannot be trusted and not all Christians believed in this date for the birth of Christ at that time.

[10] Why do you suppose that the three most popular given dates for the birth of Christ (i.e., December 25th, January 6th, and January 19th) are all in winter?  Could it be that the people of the early Christian world had access to information that we no longer have today?  Also, did you know that Pope Liberius officially moved the official birth date of Christ from January 6th in 353 AD to December 25th in 354 AD?  Liberius must have had strong evidence not available to us today to have made such a move – something beyond the supposed intent to coincide with a pagan festival or the calculations of a few theologians.

Answer: The information that they knew and we don't is no information at all. As noted Clement of Alexandria said this was all speculation with no clear proof of the birth of Christ. Why did the Pope move it to December 25th? Because of strong evidence?

Here is what Chrysostom said about Christmas in his Homily on the Birth of Christ, written in Antioch about 380 A. D.: “It is not yet ten years since this day was made known to us.” Christmas didn’t come from the apostles. It came to Antioch, the city where Paul preached, three hundred years dfter the apostle died! It came from an apostate Rome, not from Jesus Christ.

Notice what Chrysostom continues to say about Christmas: “I know well that many even yet dispute with one another about it, some finding fault with it and others defending it.” He admitted it was “new, in that it has recently been made known to us . . .” (Addis WE, Arnold T. A Catholic Dictionary: Containing Some Account of the Doctrine, Discipline, Rites, Ceremonies, Councils, and Religious Orders of the Catholic Church. Benziger Brothers, 1893. Original from Columbia University, Digitized Sep 15, 2009, p. 178) He says that this date was "fixed at Rome" (In his name, p.361by E. Christopher Reyes).

"We may take it as certain that the feast of Christ’s Nativity was kept in Rome on 25 December…It was introduced by St. John Chrysostum into Constantinople and definitively adopted in 395 (Thurston. H. Transcribed by Rick McCarty. Christian Calendar. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume III.). Why did he accept the pagan festivals? It is common knowledge that he was anti-Semitic. He called the Jews "pitiful and miserable Jews " (Saint John Chrysostom (c.347-407) : Eight Homilies Against the Jews. Fordham University.) There was no way he would accept the Festivals of the Bible.

The bishops at Rome claimed to have accurate knowledge of Christ’s birth because they possessed the census papers of Jesus’ family. Just why they kept this hidden for over three centuries they never say.

They forged many records as we note above in an effort to show that preceding popes celebrated Christmas on December 25. If this were really true, they would not have needed to forge these spurious records. So the evidence is lacking that they knew something we did not. Instead the evidence shows this came from paganism, and not the Bible. When John Chrysostom said,  "But Our Lord, too, is born in the month of December… the eighth before the calends of January [25 December]… But they call it “the Birthday of the Unconquered.” But who indeed is so unconquered as our Lord… ? Or, if they say that it is the birthday of the Sun, He is the Sun of Justice” (referencing a prophecy concerning Christ from Malachi 4:2)." (article titled, “Christmas,” the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia). Why make that comparison? The Catholics were trying to show the Christians and the pagans that Jesus was more powerful than the sun-god therefore comes to us. We have taken over the old pagan festival and applied it to Christ, showing that Christ is more powerful than the sun-god.

"It was an attempt to transfer the devotion of the masses from the heathen sun god to the true sun of righteousness, Christ. The solar winter festival was given a Christian dressing. The Sol invictus was "deposed" and Christ was now "honored" on that day. Beginning with A.D. 354, the December 25th  now belonged to Christ alone.

"Once Rome had accepted the December date for Christ's "birth," the festival quickly spread to the rest of Roman Empire. Constantinople accepted the Christmas festiva l in A.D. 380, parts of Asia Minor in 382, Alexandria, Egypt, around 430, and Jerusalem about 440." (Article The First Christmas in Rome, G.O. Marx)

This is argument also is just pure speculation.

[11] Did you know that December 25th, which falls just a few days after the winter solstice, is the point in the year when the length of the daylight hours slowly starts to increase?  Did you also know that the traditional birth date of John the Baptist, June 24th, which falls just a few days after the summer solstice, is the point in the year when the length of the daylight hours slowly starts to decrease?  Remember that John was conceived six months before Jesus according to Luke 1:26,36.  Bearing these facts in mind, I recall what the Baptist said about the Christ: “He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30).  Hence, as a means of complementing this prophecy, does is it not seem fitting that Jesus and John have their birthdays on these dates?  Saint Augustine certainly thought so: “The day He chose was that on which the light begins to increase, and it typifies the work of Christ who renews our interior man day by day. For the eternal Creator, having willed to be born in time, His birthday would necessarily be in harmony with the rest of creation” (Sermon: On the Nativity of Our Lord iii).

Answer: Again all this is speculation and making up doctrines that are NOT IN THE BIBLE! The Bible should be the primary source not Augustine or speculative dates.

When it comes to June 24th of John's Birthday, the origins of this is interesting. In the sixth century, missionaries were sent through the northern part of Europe to gather SUN Worshipers  into the Roman fold. They found that June 24th was a very popular day among these people. They sought to "Christianize" this day, but how?  By this time December 25th had been adopted by the Romish church as the birthday of Christ.  Since June 24th was approximately six months before December 25th, why not call this the birthday of John the Baptist?  John was born, it should be remembered, six months before Jesus (Luke 1:26,36).  Thus June 24th is known on the papal calendar now as St. John's Day! The missionaries were doing exactly what the People told them to do as noted in Argument #8.

In Britain, before the entrance of Christianity there, June 24th was celebrated by the Druids with blazing fires in honor of Baal.  Herodotus, Wilkinson, Layard, and other historians tell of these ceremonial fires in different countries.  When June 24th became St. John's day, the sacred fires were adopted also and became "St. John's fires"! These are mentioned as such in the Catholic Encyclopedia.  "I have seen the people running and leaping through the St. John's fires in Ireland", says a writer of the past century, "...proud of passing through unsinged...thinking themselves in a special manner blest by the 'ceremony."   It would seem that such rites would sooner honor Molech than John the Baptist!

June 24th was regarded as being sacred to the ancient fish god Oannes, a name by which Nimrod was known.  In an article on Nimrod, Fausset says: "Oannes the fish god, Babylon's civilizer, rose out of the red sea... "   In the Latin language of the Roman church, John was called JOANNES.  Notice how similar this is to OANNES!  Such similarities helped promote more easily the mixture of SUN Worship into Christianity. So both these days are rooted in paganism and cannot be used to calculate the birth of Jesus.

This argument is totally irrelevant.

[12] Many have pointed out that December 25th was originally the date when pagans celebrated the birth of their sun gods.  This date was, I admit, a logical choice for the pagans seeing how that is the date when the sunlight begins to increase again.  But when we observe how Christ is referred to as “the Sun of Righteousness” in Malachi 4:2 and as “the light of the world” in John 8:12, and observing how Psalm 84:11 says that “God is a sun and shield,” can we not also see logic in Christ being born at this time as well?  We may also observe how God proved that He was the true “Sun God” in Exodus 10:21-23 by blotting the sun out in Egyptian territory for three days.  This was done to denounce and discredit the pagan sun god, Ra, whom the Egyptians had been worshipping up to that point, and to take back worship for Himself.  Hence, can we not also see logic in Christ discrediting pagan sun gods and taking back worship once again by being born in late December?

Answer: This argument is totally laughable and is just total speculation. First, nowhere in the Text of Exodus does it says God proved he was the true "Sun God."

Psalm 84:11 is saying that God is the source of all light like the sun. God is light Compare Isa_60:19; Rev_21:23; Rev_22:5. Jesus is the light of the world like the sun gives light to the world but Jesus meant it in a spiritual sense as well as literal when he comes again. Yes God did denounce and discredit the pagan gods of Egypt, but the latter part of the argument in which he says, "can we not also see logic in Christ discrediting pagan sun gods and taking back worship once again by being born in late December?" Was he born in December? No! And why would God conform to the heathens, why not the heathen turn to him, that is the whole meaning of repentance to give up YOUR way and turn to God's way. To give up superstitious nonsense and obey God.

[13] Did you know that, typically, the only time shepherds would have been out with their flocks by night at all is when the sheep were giving birth?  Did you also know that the normal gestation period for sheep is five months and that their mating cycles begin in early January and then again in late June?  This reveals that the ewes of Bethlehem mentioned in Luke 2:8 would have been giving birth in early June and then again in late December.  Thus, anyone wishing to prefer a June-date for Christ’s birth must acknowledge that December 25th would be fairly close to Christ’s half-birthday.

Answer: You notice that the one who put this website together never looks into the bible as proof for Jesus birth but to secular sources and speculation and his own reasoning?

That sheep only give birth in the spring/summer is true for most sheep in the world. However, "the Awassi, a fat-tailed sheep, is a local breed found only in southeastern Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Cyprus and Israel." (p.1)  And "It is known that the mating season of Awassi sheep is 3 to 4 months in the fall. Mating season is at its highest level in August and November " (The Possibilities of Twice-Yearly Lambing of Awassi Sheep Ewes Without Using Hormones in an Organic Animal Production System p.2). So the possibility that Jesus was born in the fall during the mating season of the Awassi sheep is totally possible.

[14] When attempting to propose an alternate birth-month for Christ, most anti-Christmas crusaders tend to go with September (and completely ignore the facts about the mating cycles for sheep).  Yet, if Christ was indeed born in September, then is it not logical to rationalize that His conception by the Holy Spirit would have taken place nine months earlier on or near December 25th?

Answer: First we answer the facts about the mating cycle of the sheep. And Yes it is totally logical that conception was around December 25th or so, but the Bible doesn't say anything about the date. The Church never celebrated this event. The event of the Annunciation was celebrated as this website noted on March 25th not December 25th.

Now the conception of Jesus has nothing to do with the pagan sun worship. But similarities can be found with the festival of Hanukah. This month is the "darkest" of the year "with days progressively getting shorter and the nights getting longer." Therefore the "week of Hanukah often contains the longest night of the year...It no wonder that...Chanukah represents the appropriate time to kindle the lights of faith..." (Quotes from The Jewish festival of Hanukkah, the Festival of Lights, is celebrated on the 25th day of Kislev, and Jesus is called the light of the world (John 8:12, 9:5, 12:46). This does not appear to be a mere coincidence. In the book of John, Hanukkah is called the Feast of Dedication (John 10:22). Hanukkah is an eight day festival, celebrating the relighting of the menorah in the rededicated Temple, which according to the story, stayed lit miraculously for eight days on only one day's supply of oil.

[15] If you believe that the Holy Spirit preserved and guided the Scriptures into the 21st century, then why can’t you also believe that the Holy Spirit was able to preserve and guide the authentic birth date of Christ?

Answer: We do, the Bible shows the Jesus was born on the First day of the Feast of Tabernacles.

Bullingers' Companion Bible says, "The word tabernacled here (preserved in R.V. marg.) receives beautiful significance from the knowledge that "the Lord of glory" was "found in fashion as a man", and thus tabernacling in human flesh.  And in turn it shows in equally beautiful significance that our Lord was born on the first day of the great Jewish Feast of Tabernacles, viz. the 15th of Tisri, corresponding to September 29, 4 B.C. (modern reckoning).  The Circumcision of our Lord took place therefore on the eighth day, the last day of the Feast, the "Great Day of the Feast" of John 7.37 ("Tabernacles" had eight days.  The Feast of Unleavened Bread had seven days and Pentecost one.  See Lev. 23)...It thus appears without the shadow of a doubt that the day assigned the the Birth of the Lord, viz. December 25, was the day on which He was "begotten of the Holy Ghost", i.e. by pneuma hagion = divine power (Matt. 1:18, 20 marg.), and His birth took place on the 15th of Ethanim, September 29, in the year following, thus making beautifully clear the meaning of John 1:14, "The Word became flesh" (Matt. 1:18, 20) on the 1st Tebeth or December 25 (5 B.C.), "and tabernacled (Gr. eskeno-sen) with us", on 15th of Ethanim or September 29 (4 B.C.)." (Appendix 179).

Solomon, when he gave that prayer on the feast of Tabernacles, said "But will God indeed dwell on the earth" (1 Kings 8:27). And on that day they held the feast of Tabernacles. "And all the men of Israel assembled themselves unto king Solomon at the feast in the month Ethanim, which is the seventh month...And at that time Solomon held a feast, and all Israel with him, a great congregation" (verses 2, 65). Bullinger’s says, "viz Feast of Tabernacles" (p.464). Isn’t it interesting that Solomon asked will God "dwell" on the earth, on the first day of that feast, and then the Apostle John writes that God was made flesh and "TABERNACLED" among us! Everything shows that Jesus was born on the first day of that feast!

The date is preserved indeed.

[16] Even if there was no real evidence to support a December-birth for Christ, I would still see no reason for opposing this traditional date so long as there was no strong evidence to support its unlikelihood – which there isn’t.  According to Islamic tradition, Mohammed’s Hegira (flight from Mecca) occurred on Friday, July 16, 622 AD.  Although there is nothing in the Koran or any other early Muslim writing to support this date, no Muslims dispute it as far as I know because it does not contradict facts or logic.  Similarly, Buddhist tradition says that the Buddha lived from 563 BC to 483 BC.  Again, there is no historical support for this, but Buddhists do not oppose it as far as I know and they just simply believe it.  There are hundreds of traditions all over the world that are accepted without any factual support.  So, why not accept the tradition that Jesus was born December 25th?  It does not harm anybody and it does not contradict fact, logic, or the Bible.  So why do you go to such great lengths to oppose a Christian tradition but not the traditions of the Muslims and Buddhists?

Answer: So this argument says that we should just have blind faith? And there is strong evidence to support its unlikely but this person just doesn't want to accept them. There is strong evidence that shows the Jesus was born in September on the Feast of Tabernacles. Should we not "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (2 Tim 2:15). Would you rather know the truth, or continue on in your ignorance like the pagan religions. And Christians should go to great lengths to reveal the truths about the paganism in mainstream Christianity and the pagan religions (that's what the missionaries did) and show them the light of the Gospel and the truth about Jesus. This argument is telling us we should stay in darkness and ignorance. As Paul said, "And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:" (Acts 17:30). No thanks I want to believe in the truth and be grounded in it, and to "prove all things hold fast that which is good." (1 Thess 5:21).

[17] Still on the topic of tradition, Christmas tradition typically refers to “three” wise men coming from the East to visit the infant Christ.  These wise men are also occasionally referred to as the “Three Kings.”  From a logical and historic viewpoint, however, it is a rather safe assumption that there had actually been more than just three wise men visiting, and that they certainly were not royal kings.  But are these really reasonable grounds for abolishing Christmas as a whole?  We typically limit the traditional number of wise men to three for a couple of reasons.  The first is because the wise men brought three gifts: gold, frankincense, and myrrh (Matthew 2:11).  The other reason is because when producing a painting of the wise men’s visit, or putting the Christmas story on stage, having more than three wise men would make the scene look too crowded.  As for the “king” issue, the fact that the wise men had gold and expensive perfume invites a real possibility that they were men of some wealth who had subordinates.  So perhaps the word “king” can be used in more loose context here (e.g., a husband or father can be referred as a “king” in his own home, as can a millionaire who has butlers and maids).  In short, I can see some mild logic in having these unhistorically-based traditions, but I fail to see what harm these traditions may bring.  As long as we clarify to our children that the Bible does not provide the actual number of wise men nor state that they were kings, and as long as we explain that these are mere traditions for the sake of convenience, I don’t see anything worth complaining about.  If we make reference to the “Three Wise Men” or the “Three Kings” during our Christmas celebrations, do you really think God will send us to Hell just for that?

Answer: First off, the argument does prove December 25th is the true date of Christmas. Are these reasonable grounds for abolishing Christmas? No! But there are other good reasons to abolish Christmas in Christianity, as stated its rooted in Paganism, and most of the traditions are rooted in paganism which God says don't do, "Learn not the way of the heathen" (Jer 10:1). Should we listen to God or cling to pagan traditions? What God is really upset about is blending his religion with Paganism (Deut 12:29-31). There could have been 3 wise men, the Bible doesn't say, but saying that this event took place during the time of a pagan festival and blending a pagan festival with the birth of Christ, this is what God doesn't approve of. 

[18] Another anti-Christmas thought concerning the wise men argues that they gave gifts to Christ and not to each other (Matthew 2:11), and hence there is no scriptural support for families and friends to give each other presents at Christmas time.  In response to this claim, one may argue that if we do good unto others for Christ, like giving them gifts so as to show our love for them, we do good unto the Lord (Matthew 10:42, 25:40).  What else can you get for the Lord who now has everything (Matthew 28:19)?

Answer: There is no scriptural support for giving gifts at Christmas time. In fact the origins of gift giving comes from again the pagans.

From the Bibliotheca Sacra, volume 12, pages 153-155, we quote: "The interchange of presents between friends is alike characteristic of Christmas and the Saturnalia, and MUST HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY THE CHRISTIANS FROM THE PAGANS, as the admonition of Tertullian plainly shows."

History records that early Christians avoided the ancient custom of holiday "gift-giving" because it was reminiscent of the Roman Saturnalia, (see Restad, Penne L., Christmas in America, p.65).

Seneca the younger...he writes here about Rome during Saturnalia around 50 A.D: "It is now the month of December, when the greatest part of the city is in a bustle. Loose reins are given to public dissipation; everywhere you may hear the sound of great preparations, as if there were some real difference between the days devoted to Saturn and those for transacting business....Were you here, I would willingly confer with you as to the plan of our conduct; whether we should eve in our usual way, or, to avoid singularity, both take a better supper and throw off the toga."--From the Epistolae

The two scriptures cited does not describe giving gifts but helping your brothers in time of need.

And really do people give gifts at Christmas in the name of Christ? No! It more of a "get" than "give" situation. 

[19] You claim Christ’s birth and the events surrounding it were not important to the early church, and hence should not be important today, because the Apostle Paul never mentioned them in any of his epistles.  Now using that so-called logic, would you then argue that the multiple parables that Jesus taught were also not important to the early church?  For Paul never mentioned any of them either.  In fact, if you never read any of the Gospels and only ever read Paul’s writings, you wouldn’t know that Jesus used parables at all.  Secondly, it is not true that Paul never mentioned the birth of Christ.  In Galatians 4:4b, Paul states that the Son of God was “made of a woman.”  If this is not a reference to the Virgin-birth of Christ, then what is it?

Answer: Again this does not prove Christmas is the date of the birth of Jesus. We do not claim that these events were not important, we claim that these events were not celebrated by the early church. Of course these events are important that's why they are recorded in the Bible! But since these events happened during the time of the festivals of Lev 23 who's to say they did not celebrate the festival of Tabernacles and claim Jesus tabernacles among them, "God with us" Immanuel!

And the Apostle Paul did allude to the parables of Jesus quite often go to this link,

[20] Still on the topic of Paul, some critics may ask why he never made any other references to the birth-story apart from the half-verse mentioned above.  The answer is that most of Paul’s letters were written with the purpose of resolving various issues that were in dispute among the early Christians.  The purpose of Luke’s Gospel, meanwhile, was to document “those things” which were “most surely believed” among Christians “from the beginning” (Luke 1:1-2).  Hence, the fact that Luke reports the birth-story in detail, whereas Paul practically never mentions it all, provides ample evidence that the entire first-century Church accepted and believed the birth-story, and never had any disputes or doubts about its authenticity.  With this being the case, what would be the point in Paul spending precise time, paper, and ink to tell his original target audiences something that already knew perfectly well and believed?

Answer: Does this prove the birth of Christ was on December 25th? No! Did the Christians believe in the birth of Jesus? yes. On the Feast of Tabernacles? yes. The Point of this argument???

[21] You criticize the word “Christmas” for being the combination of “Christ” and “mass” to thereby mean “the mass of Christ.”  But do you know what “mass” really means in the compound word of “Christmas”?  Any authoritative dictionary will reveal that the English term “mass” evolved from the Anglo-Saxon word maesse, which derived in turn from the Latin word missa – a form of the verb mittere, meaning “to send.”  Consequently, the root meaning of “Christ-mass” (or “the mass of Christ”) is “the sending of Christ,” or “Christ is sent.”  Is God against describing the sending of His son with a word that means just that?  Did not Paul refer to the Savior’s incarnation as the sending of Christ?  (See Galatians 4:4a – “When the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son...”).  Did not Jesus often speak of “him that sent me” (John 6:38, 40)?  In short, there is absolutely nothing inherently wrong with the word “Christmas” because it actually represents quite accurately what the holiday is, or should be, all about – the sending of Christ.

Answer: I really do not know where this person gets his interpretation from but lets focus on the true meaning of the words, "Merry Christmas!"

The word "Merry" is simple to define.  It unquestionably means to be happy, joyful and light-hearted.  The word "merry" fits into the ambience of laughter and frivolity.  This word "merry" by itself is innocent and innocuous enough, but as we will now see, it becomes heinously blasphemous when used with the word "Christmas."

Here let it be noted that most people think that the word, "Christmas" means "the birth of Christ."  By definition, it means "death of Christ", and I will prove it by using the World Book Encyclopedia, the Catholic Encyclopedia, and a book entitled, The Mass In Slow Motion.

The World Book Encyclopedia defines "Christmas" as follows:  "The word Christmas comes from "Cristes Maesse", an early English phrase that means "Mass of Christ." (1)  It is interesting to note that the word "Mass", as used by the Roman Catholics, has traditionally been rejected by the so-called Protestants, such as Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals and so on.  The word "Mass" is strictly a Catholic word and thus, so is "Christ-Mass."

On page 537 of the Catholic Encyclopedia, which says, "In the Christian law, the supreme sacrifice is that of the Mass."  It goes on to say, "The supreme act of worship consists essentially in an offering of a worthy victim to God, the offering made by a proper person, as a priest, the destruction of the victim." (2)  Please note carefully the word, "victim" of the Mass.  The Latin word for victim is "Hostia" from which the word "host" is derived.  The Mass, by definition of those who coined the word, is a sacrifice involving a victim.  There is no other meaning for the word "Mass" or "Christ-Mass." 

On page 110 of a book entitled "The Mass In Slow Motion",  we find the following words: "It is only with the consecration that the sacrifice of the Mass is achieved.  I have represented the Mass to you, more than once, as a kind of ritual dance." 

In essence, the Mass is the ceremonial slaying of Jesus Christ over and over again, followed by the eating of his flesh and the drinking of his blood.  The Mass is the death sacrifice, and the "Host" is the victim.  This is official Roman Catholic doctrine, and "Christmas" is a word that they invented.  Again, I ask, what is so merry about the pain, bleeding, suffering and death of Jesus Christ? for when the millions of people are saying, "Merry Christmas", they are literally saying "Merry death of Christ!"  Furthermore, when the fat man in the red suit laughs boisterously  and says, "Ho ho ho, Merry Christmas", he is mocking and laughing at the suffering and bleeding Saviour, who died for our sins. 

[22] Some of you claim that Jesus, being a Jew, would never have celebrated His birthday because birthdays were never celebrated in the ancient Jewish world.  But what scriptural verse can you quote to support that claim?  If the Jewish people were truly opposed to the celebration of one’s birth, then why did the leaders of first-century Galilee attend, and not protest, the birthday celebration of King Herod (Mark 6:21)?  Also, have you ever heard of a Bar Mitzvah?  It’s a modern Jewish ceremony that marks attainment of religious adulthood by a boy on the Sabbath immediately following his 13th birthday.  Jewish girls have a similar ceremony, called a Bat Mitzvah, when they reach the age of twelve.  Hence, if the ancient Jewish people were truly opposed to the celebrating of birthdays, then why don’t you go and lecture the modern Jews as much as you lecture us?

Answer: Interesting The Jews in Christ's day knew God's attitude toward birthday celebrations, "Nay, indeed, the law does not permit us to make festivals at the of our children" (Flavius Josephus, Against Apion, Book II, section 26). Herod and his company did they follow what the Jews did concerning birthdays? No! The Bible in this passage in no way condones celebrating birthdays. It is just recording what Herod did on his birthday.

The origin of the bar mitzvah celebration is not biblical, and the earliest known institutionalization or celebration of this event was in the thirteenth century. But the Bar Mitzvah was not really a celebration of his birth, but a celebration of him becoming a man or a woman. These Jewish events happen only one time in the lifetime of a Jewish boy in the Bar Mitzvah, or a girl in the Bat Mitzvah, and only at the age of 12.  In their essay titled "Birthdays, Jewishly," Lisa Farber Miller and Sandra Widener point out that the Encyclopedia Judaica is very blunt on this topic: "The celebration of birthdays is unknown in traditional Jewish ritual."

In the Bible we find that the unbelievers and Pagans celebrated birthdays, Genesis 40:20-22. Job did not approve of his children doing this Job 1:4-5. Herod of course not a Jew, "Herod Antipas was the son of Herod the Great and Malthace, a Samaritan woman. Half Idumean, half Samaritan, he had therefore not a drop of Jewish blood in his veins, and “Galilee of the Gentiles” seemed a fit dominion for such a prince" (ISBE under Herod). "The gospel picture we have of him is far from prepossessing. He is superstitious (Mat_14:1 f), foxlike in his cunning (Luk_13:31 f) and wholly immoral. John the Baptist was brought into his life through an open rebuke of his gross immorality and defiance of the laws of Moses (Lev_18:16), and paid for his courage with his life (Mat_14:10; Ant, XVIII, v, 2)." (ibid)

[23] You claim that God is opposed to birthday celebrations because John the Baptist was killed on Herod’s birthday (Mark 6:21-28).  But what you are forgetting is that Herod was an evil man.  It is only natural that a bad thing would happen when someone celebrates the birth of a bad person.  But did anything bad happen when the angels and the shepherds rejoiced over the birth of Christ (Luke 2:6-20)?  Did anything bad happen when John the Baptist was born and his mother rejoiced with her neighbors and cousins (Luke 1:58)?

Answer: No nothing bad happened during the birthday of John or Jesus, or Paul, or Peter etc...It still doesn't endorse the celebration of birthdays. When a baby is born one rejoices. People who claim bad things happen on people's birthdays therefore God doesn't approve is a doctrine that is not Biblically based.

[24] Still on the topic of birthdays, did you know that the children of Job, who was one of the godliest men in the Bible, celebrated their birthdays with grand feasts?  See Job 1:4 which says that “his sons went and feasted in their houses, every one his day, and sent and called for their three sisters to eat and to drink with them.”  [Note: For evidence that the phrase “his day” in Job 1:4 is indeed referring to the day of one’s birth, observe the use of the same phrase in Job 3:1 (KJV) and the speech that follows.  Also, in verse 3:4 of that speech, we can get the impression that God Himself had been regarding the birthday of Job up to this point.]  If God was against the celebration of birthdays, then you’d think Job would have known this and taught his children that too.  Are you now going to argue that Job was a bad father? 

Answer: This does not prove that birthday celebrations are condoned in the Bible. Everyone knows when the day of their birth is. To celebrate them is some else.

Job 1:4 they celebrated their birthdays but was it condoned by Job? Job would not have worried that his children may have sinned during these celebration feasts. He was not exactly sure what was going on in their minds, but the very celebration of their birthdays triggered great concern in him "And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually." (v.5).

Concerning his birthday, The scripture says, "let not God regard it from above" (Job 3:4) meaning "rather, more poetically, “seek it out.”(JFB Commentary). Did God approve of a birthday celebration? It doesn't say. But does this text allow for birthday celebrations? It Doesn't say. To condone or condemn birthday celebrations using this text has no validity.

[25] Further to the above, you might try to argue that Job’s children were killed while they were celebrating the birthday of their eldest brother – Job 1:13, 18-19.  In reply, I would argue that, unlike Job 1:4, there is not enough evidence to support that the aforementioned verses describe a birthday feast.  For verse 1:13 simply says that this “was a day when his sons and his daughters were eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother’s house.”  It does not say that they were eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother’s house “on his day.”  Also, if this were a birthday feast, then why weren’t Job and his wife attending?  Yet, even if this was a birthday feast, it ultimately makes no difference.  For it is clear that Job’s children were not killed because they were celebrating a birthday, but because the Lord gave Satan permission to test Job’s faith.  The reason Satan chose to kill the children at this particular time is because they were all gathered in one place, thus providing the opportunity to annihilate them all at once.  But what’s the difference between this and when a terrorist blows up a church on Sunday morning to kill all the Christians who have gathered inside for worship?  Lastly, when Job was conversing with his friends trying to figure out why he had been ruined, none of them ever considered the possibility that God was angry with Job for celebrating birthdays.  Any idea why?

Answer: Again This does not prove that birthday celebrations are condoned in the Bible, or that Jesus was born on Dec 25th. 

[26] The only other mentioning of a birthday in the Bible is the Egyptian Pharaoh’s in the Old Testament story of Joseph.  Here, we have yet another account of a man being killed – namely, the Pharaoh’s baker (Genesis 40:20-22).  But was this particular death a bad thing or a good thing?  If we review the events leading up to and then following this death (i.e., Genesis 40:1 to 41:57), we see that this baker was executed in fulfillment of Joseph’s prophecy.  Just prior to prophesying the baker’s death, Joseph had also accurately prophesied that the other prisoner, the butler, would be set free on the same day.  Now, suppose that Joseph had predicted that both men would be set free, and that both men were released.  If this had been the case, the Pharaoh would probably not have taken Joseph seriously as a prophet because Joseph would have been perceived as someone who simply told people what they wanted to hear.  Hence, in order for the Pharaoh to see that Joseph was a true prophet of God, Joseph had to demonstrate that he could predict both good and bad futures.  This is why, on the Pharaoh’s birthday, one man had to die while the other was set free.  In other words, what truly happened on this particular birthday was an event that later triggered another event that ultimately allowed Joseph to save the world from a deadly famine.  Keeping all this in mind, I ask again: Was the baker’s death on the Pharaoh’s birthday ultimately a bad thing or a good thing?

Answer: Again This does not prove that birthday celebrations are condoned in the Bible.

[27] Upon further examination of the story surrounding the Pharaoh’s birthday, we see a story which parabolically reflects the day of Christ’s Second Coming.  As the fortieth chapter of Genesis begins, we see that the Butler and Baker (who represent the human race) were men who originally held respectable positions, but offended the Pharaoh (who represents God) and fell from grace.  But on the Pharaoh’s birthday, the Butler was forgiven of his offence and restored to his pre-sin position, whereas the Baker was condemned and executed.  In the same way, on the day that Christ returns, the repented Christians (represented by the Butler) will be forgiven and restored to their pre-sin state of grace, whereas the unrepented sinners (represented by the Baker) will be sent to their destruction.  So now, when seeing how this biblical birthday of the Pharaoh’s can elegantly represent the day of Christ’s Second Coming, how can anyone claim that the Bible opposes birthday celebrations?

Answer: God was not the one who set up the birthday of Pharaoh it was Pharaoh who arrange the birthday for himself God had nothing to do with it. "he made a feast unto all his servants:" (v.20). This is a perfect example of people putting their ideas into the Bible to try and justify their beliefs. Instead let the Bible speak to you, and not you adding to it and spiritualizing things beyond recognition which the Bible condemns (2 Peter 1:20).

[28] You claim that celebrating Christ’s birth is wrong simply because there is no mention of people celebrating it in the New Testament.  But the concept that something is wrong simply because it is not mentioned in the Bible – a “Bible only” position – can easily be taken to the point of absurdity.  For even the word “Bible” is not found in the Bible, nor is the word “Trinity” or “Rapture.”  There is no Bible basis for a minister performing a wedding ceremony, and neither is there any New Testament verse that says to use a crucifix as a symbol for the Christian faith or even to construct a church building.  There are also ministries that go beyond the four walls of a church (youth camps, retreats, crisis centers, etc.) that are likewise not supported by any verses.  But has not God used all of these things to touch lives?  What’s the difference between creating a youth camp to teach children about Christ and creating an annual festival to perform the same function? 

Answer: One must ask "why these things are not in the Bible and where they came from?" If they are Biblical based like Father's day or Thanksgiving they are fine. But if they originate with paganism, like the trinity and Christmas then one must examine it and then come to the conclusion to not believe in it. Developing youth camps are fine if one sticks to the Bible. But to bring in paganism and celebrating it calling it Jesus birthday when it is not is something else entirely. It all based on lies and superstition, God condemns that. It all comes down to what it is based on, the Bible or Paganism, as the Bible says, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: " (Psalm 11:10).

Jesus said a tree is known by its fruits. What fruits are produced. Biblically based ministries produce fruits of righteousness.

Christmas however produces more harm than good. Suicide and stealing is up. People want to "get" more than "give" at Christmas. Santa is seek out at Christmas more than Jesus. Its an orgy of materialism and greed.

[29] Some of you also claim that it’s wrong to celebrate man-made holidays.  But a careful interpretation of Romans 14:5-6 reveals that exalting a certain day over another is acceptable so long as the day is regarded unto the Lord.  Why would God give His people full-blown permission to exalt one day above another unless there was something major to be benefitted from it?  Also, adding verses 1-4 to the interpretation of verses 5-6 shows that while it is wrong to despise those who do not celebrate a holiday, it is equally wrong to despise those who do.  Hence, when you attempt to abolish Christmas and condemn people for regarding December 25th unto the Lord, are you not in direct violation against the word of God?  [Please note that while people like myself certainly invite and encourage people to celebrate Christmas, we do not attempt to force the holiday on anyone, nor do we condemn those who turn our invitations down.  Thus, we do not violate Romans 14:1-6 as you do.] 

Answer: This is a total misinterpretation of this verse. First of all it is not wrong to celebrate man made holidays like the fourth of July or Canada day. These celebrate certain events that happen in your nation. There is no paganism there.

Romans 14 the "days" Paul mentions here? We must look at the context to find out.

Paul was writing to a mixed church of Jewish and gentile believers in Rome. In verses 2 and 3 Paul discussed vegetarianism ("he who is weak eats only vegetables") and continued this theme in verse 6 ("he who eats...and he who does not eat").

The passage in question about "days" is in verses 5 and 6 is directly associated with eating and not eating.

"The close contextual association with eating suggests that Paul has in mind a special day set apart for observance as a time for feasting or as a time for fasting" (Everett F. Harrison, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 10, p. 146, emphasis added).

The "days" mentioned here are obviously connected with avoidance of meat. What then was Paul talking about? He was talking about fast days. The whole beginning of the 14th chapter of Romans is about food and how people’s beliefs about food should not be interfered with. The fast days could be observed according to each believer’s conscience. A man could eat or not eat, keep the day or not keep it. Each man could observe FAST DAYS, or not observe them, according to his own convictions "fully convinced in his own mind."

He that does not eat, regards the day [of fasting].

He that eats, does not regard the day [of fasting].

The "days" that Paul was referring to were the traditional fast days mentioned in Zechariah 7:5-6. The Gentile Christians in Rome did not keep them because they had no cultural interest in the anniversary fasts that were observed during the Jews’ captivity in Babylon.

These are the four traditional fasts mentioned in Zechariah:

1. The fast of the 4th month, in remembrance of the breaking of the wall of Jerusalem.

2. The fast of the 5th month, in remembrance of the burning of the Temple.

3. The fast of the 7th month, in remembrance of the killing of Gedaliah, which completed the Dispersion.

4. The fast of the 10th month, in remembrance of the beginning of the siege of Jerusalem, (see Jeremiah 52:6, 12-13; 2 Kings 1,3,8,25).

It is interesting how Kupp compares this to the other Commandments of God to show the absurdity of this interpretation to mean God’s laws, "You see, Paul could not have been talking about keeping the Sabbath day holy, because obedience to Elohim’s Law is not optional. It is ludicrous to suggest that any of the Ten Commandments, for example, can be disobeyed ‘unto YHWH’! Think of the absurdity of saying, ‘He that stealeth, to YHWH he stealeth; and he that stealeth not, to YHWH he stealeth not"’ ("The Truth About Romans 14" "Let Every Man Be Persuaded In His Own Mind" By Harold Kupp, emphasis his).

This whole subject is about one group trying to enforce on the rest of the church their culture; its has nothing to do with God's law and commandments which flat out says not to worship Idols. 

These are "days" like Thanksgiving or Hanukah the commemorate events that took place in history. And because they dedicated it to God they were trying to impose it on the church, and Paul said some of these "days" meant nothing to the gentile part of the church, so people should not do that. This has nothing to do with Idolatrous days or practices but national days commemorating events that the Jews were celebrating and wanting to impose on the rest of the church. Its like the American part of the church saying to the rest of the church around the world "you must celebrate thanksgiving" when Thanksgiving is an American holiday and has nothing to do with the brethren in the church in the Philippines. The Pilipino church has no reason to celebrate it and should be forced to.  This has nothing to do with pagan days whatsoever. Pagan days have everything to do with worshipping a pagan god which God condemns.

[30] If you still plan to harass people for celebrating the man-made holidays of Christmas and Easter, then why don’t you also harass the Jews for celebrating the man-made holiday of Hanukkah?  [Note: Hanukkah is the yearly anniversary of when Judas Maccabee liberated the Jews from the Greeks, just as Easter is the yearly anniversary of when Jesus Christ liberated the world from sin.]  In addition, why don’t you also harass anyone who celebrates the man-made holiday of Thanksgiving or Independence Day?  Perchance is it because those holidays have nothing to do with Jesus?  If Thanksgiving were a holiday that celebrated the time Jesus fed the 5,000 people, would you then oppose it just as strongly as you oppose Christmas and Easter?  

Answer: As noted above man made holidays are find as long as their are not rooted in paganism. Notice how this person says that we who do not believe in Christmas are harassing people. We do not, we just present the truth. Hanukah is based on true events in the Jewish history like the 4th of July etc...

Easter on the other hand is a pagan festival and has nothing to do with the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Notice how he tries to link Easter with the events of Christ when they are NOT linked at all. The festival that has everything to do with this event is the Passover and the Days of Unleavened Bread which the Bible says we must celebrate. Read our Booklet on Easter for details. This is the point we are trying to get across. If its rooted in paganism one should not celebrate it because God condemns Idolatry. If it is not like Hanukah 4th of July, those are find to celebrate.

[31] Still on the topic of man-made holidays, let us observe the man-made annual custom of commemorating Jephthan’s daughter (Judges 11:39b-40) or the man-made feast of Purim where gifts were exchanged (Esther 9:19).  Can you show me a verse where the Lord shows opposition to either of these?  Also, as I already stated in the question above, another man-made holiday was the Feast of Dedication – better-known today as Hanukkah.  And if you turn to John 10:22-39, you will notice that Jesus Himself took advantage of this feast and used it as an opportunity to preach in the temple.  What’s the difference between Jesus embracing Hanukkah as an opportunity to preach the Gospel, and us embracing Christmas as an opportunity to do the same thing? 

Answer: My above answer is the same for this argument.

[32] If God did not want us celebrating Christmas, then why did He preserve the stories on which Christmas is based?  Now, I acknowledge that the events reported by Matthew were preserved to show how certain Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled.  Yet, regarding the events reported by Luke, where in the Old Testament is it prophesied that angels would appear to shepherds when the Messiah was born, or that the Boy’s mother would lay Him in a manger?  And for that matter, where in the Old Testament is it prophesied that John the Baptist would be the son of a Levite priest whose wife had past the age of childbearing?  Luke could very easily have left out the first two chapters of his book and not caused the rest of the New Testament to suffer.  But God made sure that Luke left them in.  Think about it. 

Answer: Oh I thought about it. First, This does not prove that Jesus was born on December 25th. And why not include in the Bible the very night Jesus was born it was a very special night. And the reason this was put in the Bible when one examines the birth of John and Jesus is to understand the events and the season of the year that it was! The feast of Passover and Tabernacles when these two men were born. John being the Elijah to come, and Elijah has always been linked with the Passover, and God, Jesus "tabernacling on Earth."

[33] Did you know that Jeremiah 10:2-5 is not referring to the condemnation of those who decorate Christmas trees?  Rather, these verses refer to the condemnation of the heathen people who created idols out of trees and worshiped them as gods.  (Compare those verses to Isaiah 40:18-20).  Does anyone today worship the Christmas tree as a god?

Answer: Jeremiah is really talking about pagan "tree worship" that the Israelites of his time had taken up. The palm tree (which is an evergreen like most Christmas trees today) was being decorated with gold and silver spiral ribbons like those that come forth from the working of a lathe and also with blue and purple cloth ribbons. Such trees were known as asherahs. They are mentioned several times in the Old Testament and often are translated by the English word "grove." But the word asherah has been shown to refer to a single tree that can be living, cut out of the forest, or depicted in various abstract forms. The Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics has a large article that shows the universal proclivity of all ancient peoples (including the Hebrews) to indulge in the worship of living trees and those they had cut out of the forest for religious reasons (vol.12, pp.448-457).

Hislop in his Two Babylons says 'The Christmas tree, now so common among us, was equally common in PAGAN ROME AND PAGAN EGYPT (emphasis in original). 'Baal-Berith (the Babylonian Tammuz) was symbolized as an evergreen, or immortal tree. The Christmas tree, then decked with gold (deity), and silver (unlimited provision), represents the deified, reincarnation life of Nimrod, which has sprung forth from the dead tree stump. 'Since the earliest of times, trees, especially green evergreens, were worshipped by the pagans. To them it represented life and freshness. Since it was EVER green, it always had life. The trees were worshipped as symbols of life, fertility, sexual potency and reproduction.

These practices were taken up by the Israelites and God condemns the worship of Baal and "under every green tree:" (Deut 12:2).

When you look into the bible you read of the "groves" that people worshipped under, and how the sacrificed children to Baal. And what were the "groves"? The word in Hebrew is "asherah." Kitto says, "The word asherah and its plural [asherim] [is] rendered in the A.V. [and is] constantly mentioned with high places. At first sight the common LXX [Septuagint] rendering, followed by our version, seems to carry conviction with it, from the connection of high places with worship under the trees, and the prevelance of nature-worship in Palestine; but a closer examination shows something of the character of an image must be intended" (Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature, Kitto, vol. 11, p. 302, emphasis added). Kitto also says, "It must be remembered that the grove is constantly connected with Baal" (Ibid. p.302, emphasis added).

Hislop writes "The Christmas tree, as has been stated, was generally at Rome a different tree, even the fir; but the very same idea as was implied in the palm-tree was implied in the Christmas fir; for that covertly symbolized the new-born God as BAAL-BERITH, ‘Lord of the Covenant,’ and thus shadowed forth the perpetuity and everlasting nature of his power, now that after having fallen before his enemies, he has risen triumphant over them all. Therefore, the 25th of December, the day that was observed at Rome as the day when the victorious god appeared on earth, was held as the Natalis invicti solis, ‘The birth-day of the Unconquerable Sun.’ Now the Yule Log is the dead stock of Nimrod, deified as the sun god, but cut down by his enemies; the Christmas tree is Nimrod redivivus -- the slain god come to life again" (Two Babylons., p.98, emphasis added).

This practice of tree worship was one of the reasons Israel got taken away (2 Kings 17). And when the Israelites migrated up into Europe it was still practiced among them.

Now we come to the story of Saint Boniface, and the origin of the Modern Day Christmas tree.

St. Boniface, a British monk, was preaching to a tribe of Germanic Druids outside the town of Geismar. To these Druids, the oak was a sacred tree. St. Boniface, trying to convince these people that the oak was not sacred, and he felled one on the spot. The tree toppled over, crushing every shrub in its way except a small fir sapling. Legend has it that St. Boniface interpreted the fir’s survival as a miracle and declared it ‘the tree of the Christ Child.’ (see . Frazer, in The Golden Bough ). Jeremiah 10 has everything to do with Christmas trees. These trees were dedicated to Baal, God condemns it in Jeremiah 10

Notice that this prophecy of Jer 10 is to the HOUSE OF ISRAEL, NOT the House of Judah the Jews. The House Israel at this time was gone, yet this message was to them. Obviously this is a prophecy to the House of Israel in this end time.

Does it have anything to do Isaiah 40:18-20? Notice the scriptures, "To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him?

"The workman melteth a graven image, and the goldsmith spreadeth it over with gold, and casteth silver chains.

"He that is so impoverished that he hath no oblation chooseth a tree that will not rot; he seeketh unto him a cunning workman to prepare a graven image, that shall not be moved."

"The workman melteth a graven image, and the goldsmith spreadeth it over with gold, and casteth silver chains."  This is not speaking of decorating a tree with silver and gold but making a mold and spreading gold plates on it and chains. There are no chains in Jeremiah 10:1-4.

Jeremiah 10:4 says they "deck it:" with silver and gold. This word means, " yâphâh1) to be bright, be beautiful, be handsome, be fair 1a) (Qal) to be beautiful 1b) (Piel) to beautify 1c) to be beautiful 1d) (Hithpael) to beautify oneself"  (Browns Driver Briggs). This is why people put those decorations on a Christmas trees to make it beautiful or beautify it.

The next verse says "He that is so impoverished that he hath no oblation chooseth a tree that will not rot; he seeketh unto him a cunning workman to prepare a graven image, that shall not be moved." (Isaiah 40:20). Here one who cannot afford a metal god then goes to the carpenter, and selects a good sound block of wood, out of which his idol shall be made. After this he has to find a skilful workman, who will carve his image for him and set it up, so that it shall not shake. The majority of ancient idols were made of solid clay, stone, bone, metal or wood, most were not gilded over with gold or silver wood as well but more so other substances. They were on the other hand commonly decorated or painted with such substances. The description in Jeremiah 10 is totally different.

When Jeremiah said to cut a tree "from the forest," a forest is made up of numerous trees usually over a vast region of land. A forest is made up of many trees, not many "blocks of wood" or "pieces of timber." The immediate context of Jeremiah shows he is really talking about a tree that one can cut down and that it [the tree] can be decked or adorned with gold or silver and/or blue or purple cloths.

There is a further way to show that the context of Jeremiah is speaking of a literal tree. He states that the "tree" which is decked with ornaments and is nailed in place is like a "palm tree" that is upright [secured with hammered metal] so that it remains rigid and erect. This is what Jeremiah wrote if one uses the simple meaning of the Hebrew words as a guide. A "palm tree" is certainly being discussed by Jeremiah because the only other time the word is used in the Bible, it clearly refers to a living palm tree (Judges 4:5). This is a reliable clue. Jeremiah is describing a living tree indoors and beautified with silver and gold fastened so it does not move. This is the worship of asherah poles that are Christmas trees today.

Does anyone today worship the Christmas tree as a god? Not as a god but it is venerated and admired. People sing songs around it and about it. People still do to the tree what the ancient pagans did. Even though they do it in ignorance should we keep them in ignorance, or tell them the truth? If you encountered an ancient people that practice cannibalism, would you keep them in ignorance or show them the truth? The whole world is deceived (Rev 12:9), the church of God's work is to unveil the deception.

[34] Did you know that the Christmas tree first originated in medieval Christian Germany, and not paganism, and was intended to represent the Tree of Life which we shall freely eat from in the Kingdom (Revelation 2:7, 22:2, & 22:14)?  Did you also know that the medieval Christian Germans decorated their Christmas trees with wafers to represent Christ as the “bread of life” (John 6:35), and also with candles to represent Christ as the “light of the world” (John 8:12)?  Likewise, did you know that the colorful lights that we put on our Christmas trees and around our homes were originally intended to honor God who is the “Father of lights” (James 1:17)?  Also, did you know that the star which we place on top of the Christmas tree represents both the Star of Bethlehem (Matthew 2:2,9-10) and the Lord Himself who is the “bright and morning star” (Revelation 22:16)?  In short, the original purpose of the Christmas tree and its decorations was to remind us of our loving Savior and the gifts He has promised us.  They are not pagan by any means and are completely Christian in origin.  [Note: the reason an evergreen tree was chosen to represent the Tree of Life is because a tree which never loses its color makes a good symbol for immortality.  Another reason is because the evergreen’s triangular shape serves to remind us of the Trinity.] 

Answer: No Coffin in The Book of Christmas Folklore tells us:

"Most people have heard that the Christmas tree originates in the tannenbaum and is some sort of vestige of Teutonic vegetation worship. THIS IS PARTIALLY TRUE. However, the custom of using pine and other evergreens ceremonially was well established at the ROMAN SATURNALIA, even earlier in Egypt" (p. 209).

"Many of the plants used at Christmas are SYMBOLS OF FERTILITY. Certainly any evergreen (fir, yew, laurel) with its ability to return verdure in the barrens months is appropriate, but by far the most interesting are the holly, the ivy, and the mistletoe. Holly, with its pricking leaves, white flowers, and red berries symbolizes the male reproductive urge. In fact, in the English carols...the holly is the male and the ivy is the female. This use of the plants was most likely BORROWED by the Christians along with other customs of the ROMAN SATURNALIA" (ibid p. 22-23).

What you read above is typical of taking pagan customs and putting a Christian name on it which God says we should no do, "

"Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise.

"Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: [context; don't take pagan rituals and worship me with them] for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.

"What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. (Deut 12:30-32)


[35] Did you know that candy canes are shaped like a shepherd’s staff to represent Christ who is the Good Shepherd (John 10:11-17)?  Did you also know that the white stripes on the candy canes serve to remind us of Christ’s perfect sinless life, and that the red stripes serve to remind us of His precious blood that was shed for our salvation?  It may also be observed that when you flip the candy-cane upside down, it resembles the letter J.  Any idea whose name that stands for? 

Answer: Candy Canes are a fairly recent invention and has no relevance to our discussion here. This is not proof that Jesus was born on December 25th.

[36] Did you know that snow is a symbol of the highest purity and stands for the condition of the redeemed soul (Matthew 28:3, Revelation 1:14, Isaiah 1:18, Psalm 51:7)?  Does it not then seem appropriate to use the image of the snowflake or the snowman in our Christmas celebrations? 

Answer: Does this really need answering? Is this proof Jesus was born on December 25th, or is it just looking for things to prove their position?

[37] There are many other images, symbols, and practices associated with Christmas (and Christianity as a whole) that people claim have been taken from paganism.  But have you ever wondered where the pagans got all their ideas from?  The Old Testament worship system is full of similarities to that of the Israeli’s pagan neighbors.  Some examples include the fact that both the pagans and the Israelites had a temple and a priesthood, they both used incense in worship and offered animal sacrifices, they both had spring and fall harvest feasts, they both had water cleansing . . . the list is nearly endless.  From these observations, we must conclude that either the Jewish and Christian customs are just ripoffs from paganism or that it’s the other way around.  If the former is true, then both Judaism and Christianity are just worthless cults.  But if the latter be true, then practically everything pagan is, in fact, ripped off from the monotheistic religion that God established with Adam and then re-established with Noah after the Flood.  If that be the case, then Christians didn’t really take anything that originated from paganism at all, but rather simply took back and “uncorrupted” what was originally sanctified by God.

Answer: LOL. I cannot believe the length people will go to cling on to their traditions. Notice where Idolatry came from, "Herodotus, world traveler and historian of antiquity, witnessed the mystery religion and its rites in numerous countries and mentions how Babylon was the primeval source from which ALL SYSTEMS OF IDOLATRY FLOWED. Bunsen says: ‘[The] Religious system of Egypt was derived from Asia and the primitive empire of BABEL"’ (David Todd, The Origin of Easter, p.11, emphasis added). The sacrifices and Priesthoods and everything came from the Babylonian Mystery religion. Nimrod and his wife started this system of Idolatry in defiance of God as the Bible says, "And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth." (Gen 11:4) Make a name for themselves make their own religion and not follow God, but Nimrod.

Now to say because they had sacrifices priesthoods etc...does not mean it came from God. These pagan festivals and practices originated with Babel, and they were not going to obey God any longer. One cannot say Just because they had priesthoods and sacrifices and festivals that one came from another or vice versa.

The above illustrates the logical fallacy of false cause. This fallacy is committed whenever someone reasons that just because two things exist side by side, one of them must have caused the other. As we all should know, mere coincidence does not prove causal connection. Nor does similarity prove dependence. Unless one can demonstrate as we have done with Christmas coming from Paganism, this argument cannot stand.

Early Christianity was an exclusivistic faith. As J. Machen explains, the mystery cults were nonexclusive. "A man could become initiated into the mysteries of Isis or Mithras without at all
giving up his former beliefs; but if he were to be received into the Church, according to the preaching of Paul, he must forsake all other Saviors for the Lord Jesus Christ....Amid the prevailing syncretism of the Greco-Roman world, the religion of Paul, with the religion of Israel, stands absolutely alone." (9)This Christian exclusivism should be a starting point for all reflection about the possible relations between Christianity and its pagan competitors. Any hint of syncretism in the New Testament would have caused immediate controversy.

Even farther back in Old Testament times, Albert Schweitzer recognized this fallacy, "Almost all the popular writings fall into this kind of inaccuracy. They manufacture out of the various fragments of information a kind of universal mystery-religion which never actually existed least of all in Paul's day" (A Ready Defense, McDowell, p.169)

There is also an error of "using Christian terminology to describe pagan beliefs" (ibid, p.169) which this person has done in this argument.

[38] Did you know that food banks, homeless shelters, and clothing drives get far more donations at Christmas time than at any other time of the year?  Thus, without this holiday, a great many more people would be shivering, sick, and starving during the winter months.

Answer: That's nice that people are giving but I don't see how this proves Jesus was born on December 25th. And really this way of giving is just creating a welfare state and not individuals making something of themselves and contribute to society. The Bible says "For the poor shall never cease out of the land" (Deut 15:11) because we don't follow the laws of God if we did God says, "Save when there shall be no poor among you; for the LORD shall greatly bless thee in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it:" (Deut 15:4).  And after all these hundreds of years of giving has the poor cease from the land? No! Why? We are not doing it God's way as he says, "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat." (2 Thess 3:10). We should give. Gove the knowledge of skill labor, education work ethis to the poor so the society can thrive. We must relieve the oppressed, not keep them in their poverty which we do with this kind of giving.

[39] Did you know that many people who only go to church on Christmas Eve and Easter Sunday probably wouldn’t go to church at all if these holidays didn’t exist?  But thanks to the celebration of these holidays, God is given an opportunity to bring these unsaved sinners into a church where they can hear a life-changing Gospel message that might (just might) put them on the road to redemption and enable them to eventually come to Christ.

Answer: I don't see how this proves Christmas, but most people just go to church out of obligation or ceremony. Most are not really interested in God or the Bible its just tradition or something you do.  That's vain Christianity-they are getting nothing out of it.

But if one wants to make this comparison, if people went to the holy days of God which is 7 TIMES A year they would go to church more often and get a more spiritual message of the Bible real food for the soul.

[40] Did you know that during the rest of the year, many businesses just barely break even or actually lose money, and that it is only during the Christmas shopping season that they actually make any kind of profit?  Thus, without this holiday, many of these businesses would either go bankrupt or be forced to lay off numerous employees.  In other words, without Christmas, there would be even more unemployment and homelessness than there is today.

Answer: This does not prove Jesus was born on December 25th and again if people went to the holy days of God which is 7 TIMES A year business would do a lot better.

Did you know that if business tithe to God they would not have to worry about holidays for income. God promises blessing to those who tithe. Did you know that the early American industrialist tithe, and when they did have very successful business like Colgate?  That is the secret to financial success not Christmas.


[41] Although it’s true that some churches in the past tried to outlaw Christmas, this does not necessarily mean that they were on God’s side in this matter.  After all, the Jehovah’s Witnesses oppose Christmas, but they also oppose the Trinity and numerous other core Christian doctrines. The same is also true for the followers of Herbert Armstrong.  We know those groups are wrong about these and many other things, so why should we listen to them, let alone believe them, when they claim that Christmas is wrong?

Answer: Truth is truth no matter what, as long as you can substantiate it from the Bible. The Apostle Paul quoted pagan authors that we "as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring." (Act 17:28).  Why did he quote them? Because its the truth, and can be substantiated in the Bible. Not that he was looking into paganism for truth as this website suggest we do, no! But the Apostle Paul saw that even the pagans had some truth because the Bible says the same thing that we are the children of God.

They outlawed Christmas because it was pagan that's the truth. Jehovah's witness have some truth, why? you can prove some of what they believe in, in the Bible. The Bible is the standard of truth, "searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. " (Acts 17:11). "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (2 Tim 2:15). "if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Isaiah 8:20). Everything we believe must be tested from the Bible the ultimate source of truth including Catholic and Protestants churches.

[42] If you continue to exploit the fact that early Christian Americans once declared Christmas illegal, then you should be reminded that early Christians in Great Britain also once declared it illegal to have an English version of the Bible.  It’s an historic fact that before King James gave his authorization, certain men were executed for translating the scriptures.  Such was also the case in other European countries when someone would try to translate the Bible into his native tongue.  Hence, if the Lord automatically disapproves of anything that was ever once declared illegal by Christians, then, by your own logic, should God not be furious with us for using English Bibles today?  [Note: It should be rather obvious today that the early church leaders who violently banned English Bibles were either seriously misguided or were willingly satanic in their attempts to hold control over the Church.  So perhaps is it rational to speculate that the modern objectors to Christmas can be classified in a similar category?]

Answer: The reason why this is mentioned is to demonstrate why it illegal in the first place regardless is to whether it was right or wrong to do so that's the point we are trying to make. It was the time of the reformation of cleansing the church of all the paganism, that's the point, they knew Christmas was pagan! We can make judgments whether it was right or wrong, thats is not the point one is trying to make here. The point is, they made it illegal because they knew it was not Christian!

[43] It is true that both the world and the church have abused Christmas, along with the Christian religion in general, and used them for evil purposes.  But does such abuse dictate abandonment of the whole Christmas holiday or the entire Christian faith?  We would have very little left if we gave up everything that is abused or misused.  We couldn’t grow corn for instance because distillers misuse it in making whiskey, which robs families of food, clothing, and shelter.  We would have to prohibit all fires too because arsonists employ them for criminal ends.  We would even have to eliminate knives from the kitchen because murderers use them to kill.  And we would certainly have to ban all forms of medicine because many people have gotten seriously ill and even died from taking the wrong kind or too much of the right kind.  Christians certainly deplore the modern and sinful manner of celebrating Christmas, but that does not mean we must discontinue the entire holiday.  We do not do away with all birthday parties because some of them become drinking bouts, and we certainly do not discard the Bible because false cults abuse it or because madmen manipulate its words to justify genocide.  No more does the abuse of the Christmas season dictate its repudiation by Christians.  God is certainly against the gross commercialization of the birth of His Son.  But millions of believers celebrate Christmas reverently.  Is God against this?

Answer: First I don't see how this proves Jesus was born on December 25th. There is nothing wrong with celebrating something when done correctly, doing it according to how God says. But celebrating something on the wrong day, a day when none of the events described in the Bible happened on that day, would God condone something that is not true. Does God condone blind faith and ignorance. The Bible says, "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." (1Thess 5:21). God wants real faith not blind faith. 

[44] During the holiday season, which message do you think is more likely to help non-Christians embrace Christianity?  Is it (a) the message that Christ came into this world, born of a virgin, to save sinners, or (b) the message that celebrating Christmas makes God angry and wrathful?  I’ll put it another way: Suppose a non-Christian is walking down the street and hears a preacher shouting “Christmas is evil! It’s pagan to the core! God wants us to have nothing to do with it!”  Do you think that, after hearing this kind of rant, the non-Christian will suddenly realize that he is a sinner and rush into the church to give his life to Jesus?  Or rather, do you think he’ll view Christians as being in a civil war and decide to avoid Christianity all together? 

Answer: Again this does not prove Jesus was born on Dec 25th. To paint people with a broad brush and lumping all people who don't believe in Christmas this way is a terrible thing to do. What about telling people that Jesus was born on this day later to find out he wasn't would this drive people away from Christianity thinking that its false due to people perpetuating a myth?

But exposing something and telling people the true origins of something, will ignite something inside the person and cause them to investigate for themselves and spark and interest in the Bible, I have seen this many many times, and many turn to God and repent.

45] As was demonstrated by the earlier questions in this list, there is more than enough evidence (both biblically and historically) that a December birth for Christ is not only possible, but that December 25th could very well be the authentic date of Christ’s birth.  The only reason for objecting to this possibility is because of the day’s supposed link to paganism.  Consider that every day of the year can be linked in some way or another to paganism.  Should the fact that pagan rituals were held every day of the week cause us to disregard the historical facts of Christ’s birth?  Should we stop worshiping on Saturday because the name “Saturn-day” honors the pagan god Saturn?  Should we stop worshiping on Sunday because the name is linked to ancient heathen sun-worship?  Is it impossible for God to do sacred acts on these days because they had, at one time or another, been associated with some sort of pagan ritual?  Must God prevent His Son from being born because, no matter what day the birth occurred, someone would find some cause to link it to paganism?  I think not.

Answer: As demonstrated from the above answers we gave Jesus was not born in December and that this day is linked with paganism. The ancient church borrowed from the pagans to accommodate the pagans in the church and to bring more pagans into the church as well. Not to mention to keep the stability of the empire in tact.

The days of the week are given these names by the pagans. The Bible just names them the 1st day, 2nd day etc...The 7th day alone is called the Sabbath. God will act on the days he has created regardless of what the pagans do on them.