Message from Atmos for 28-August-2009 by Mike Quinsey

It looks to me like they may have their own little disclosure project to be addressing. Thank You

And also, what would have been a better way to get rid of the terrorists? How much longer would it take? How would people react to this course of action?

@ -me-

>>” They ALLOWED us to live like that…. they are too self serving and did not care ENOUGH.”

I can certainly understand your bitterness, but do you understand their problem with interfering with some people’s free will? The darkness was by design – not something that was randomly “allowed” for over 13 thousand years, because someone didn’t care – quite on the contrary – we have evolved quite at bit due to the darkness, which was needed and by design.

>>“The Pleaidians… they …simply did not give a shit enough”
They have their own issues given their history, but it does not mean that they do not love us. If you allow your children to climb a tree where they might fall and hurt themselves – does that mean you do not love them? Of course not!

>>” The OTHERS have leaned on our inadequacies all these years while saying to themselves that we have to do better or we won’t help you and that I think is completely disgusting. That is not only unprofessional, but with no heart, which reveals the fact that they also hide behind the light of christ as many do here, and in the background consort with a complete self serving behaviour”

I think you are being a bit unfair, but I understand why you would think in such a way. If you were a 5th dimensional consciousness how would you have done it differently? Besides would you want to land in the middle of an insane place where all the inmates where carrying weapons? It is all too easy to blames everything on someone else. Yes, we have been ridiculously manipulated and controlled, but it was by design, and it is no longer a design that serves us, and it will no longer be permitted to continue.

In Light & Peace

Sirians are scared of “what might happen” that’s clear and also those sirians who wish to rescue humans, have incarnated there and now want to be rescued and noone can save anyone they just regret it.

THANX AGAIN, MIKE QUINSEY, AND ATMOS, FROM THE HIGHER REALMS OF LIGHT AND LOVE,FOR THIS WONDERFUL MESSAGE….MY THEORY FOR LATE INTERVENTION, IS,,,, THIS IS A BOOT-CAMP, FOR OUR SOUL, LIKE ALEX COLLIER SAID, IN HIS APRIL 2009 INTERVIEW SPEACH. WHATS DONE IS DONE,,,LOOK AHEAD,AND HAVE A VISION, WHO, YOU WANT TO BE,,AND WHAT DO YOU WANT TO CREATE.? WE ALL HAVE A CHANCE TO ASCEND.. SO FOCUSE, ON WHAT LIES AHEAD, NOT WHATS BEHIND THE PAST MEMORIES..THERE IS NO PAST,,AND THERE IS NO FUTURE….ITS THE NOW.???? SO LET THE HEAVY KARMIC FADE, FOR THIS IS JUST AND EXPERIENCE…..WE ARE ON THIS WORLD, NOT OF THIS WORLD ? ….I AM LOVE, YOU ARE LOVE…..LETS GET TOGETHER, AND FLOOD MOTHER-EARTH, WITH JOY AND LOVE. CHEERS TO ALL WITH LOVE AND LIGHT. GALACTIC DRAGO, READY TO GO HOME.

“Boot Camp is a good way of describing it?”. When last I checked the motto of the marine is “leave no man behind”. Listen, you can sign on for a mission, but if you find yourself behind enemy lines surrounded by the enemy with no room for advancement. Then your mission is over. Time to do a rescue drop. If they don’t come, then you’ve just joined the wrong side.

Well THERE you are MKN!!! Glad to have you back online. I was hoping that you were still well and hangin’ in there Commander!!!!

Hi Laurinda.

I am so ready for first contact! Last night I had a dream of a big party going on and it was outside. I was walking around talking to many happy people that I didn’t know. I don’t recall any of the conversations I had and it ended with me getting in my car. I woke up and I felt real happy. I looked at the clock and I had over slept. I normally don’t do that. I was glad it was saturday and didn’t have to be somewhere. Has anybody had a dream like that? I just wonder if we all aren’t celebrating already in our dream world.

Happy Sunday to All…much LOVE

This popped into my head after reading the thread above: haha

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLCJEYLIBQY

This material would be well shared with those who are in question or uninformed as the the foundations of all the growth and change we are experiencing, I think a good eye opener for those who still doubt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYMWdDqDn68

a little bit more zoe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFXNZLsEVqw

Remember, God doesn’t condemn anybody. If a soul truly wants to hate God, then it will have what it desires.

God will not force a soul to Him.

IMAC….You’d better watch some of this and get off that bible for at least a (couple a minutes) and try to clear your head a bit…..it might do ya some good…yo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3M05MtoJhgk

Please don’t give in to these lies.

Jesus said, “you will know them by their fruits. A good tree does not bare bad fruit, and a bad tree does not bear good fruit.”

These “aliens” made promises before that they couldn’t deliver on, then blamed YOU, saying how you “weren’t ready.”

Don’t give in! See it for what it truly is!

Have you ever read the “Dolorous Passion”? You can Google it if you want and read it online.

It is a series of revelations given to a nun/visionary in the 19th century concerning the Life of Christ, which she wrote down.

As a matter of fact, Mel Gibson’s film “The Passion of the Christ” is partially based on these writings.

If I see someone who “wants to believe” that they are invincible walk in the middle of a busy highway, blindfolded, I am going to say something.

@I-AM-A-CHRISTIAN:

One thing that makes me furious is well meaning humans that try and save stranded whales and dolphins on the beach. It is well meaning, but these highly evolved beings have chosen to strand deliberately – their mission is done, and this is the quickest way to return to the light, and well meaning humans who haven’t understood anything (but think they do) and try to “save” them, but in reality they are only giving them more misery. It was well meaning, but they have only caused suffering.

I understand that you are only trying to help, and your intensions are noble. I get it I really do, but what exactly is it you are trying to convince us of? That these are Satan’s words? You didn’t answer – just gave me cryptic questions about “absolute” truth – I’m not sure how to respond to that, other than any human claiming to know the absolute truth is either trying to deceive you or deceiving themselves. This is exactly why people should be allowed to believe what they want to.

We can debate all we want and still not reach and agreement, and why should we, but as it is now I still don’t know what exactly you are trying to convince us of? If the Bible is your truth, then you will have to give it up. I will never start believing in such a manipulated scripture, and why is that such a crusade for you to convince me? Well, at least Christians are not chopping my head off or burning me on the stake anymore

I know you believe that we are blinded folded people running around a busy street to you, and I appreciate that you point that out to us, but you have to respect that we do not see it that way, even though it hurts you to do so. I my view you are generating bad karma for yourself by trying to force your beliefs on other people, but I can only point that out to you and respect that you don’t see it that way, and let you continue if you so wish. It is simply against *my* beliefs to force my will on you, which is exactly why it is so provocative to me to experience door bell ring Christians who want to save me – however well meaning.

I don’t care who is right or wrong – but I do care that people are allowed to have their beliefs. A discussion is great, but repeating the same message over and over again is not beneficial for anyone, and the irony of this is that I’m repeating this message to you over and over again

I’m like a stranded dolphin – I do not want help. Nice of you to offer, but unlike that poor animal I can decline.

In Peace & Light

The irony here is, this is all about creator, and much to do about nothing, concerning rhetoric and the minuscule definitions that are attempted to be squeezed from it.

It’s actually real simple, god is love and if you can have any faith in that at ALL, you will find that we are ALL ONE.

This is not about FEAR, it is love and careing, those are the truths from SOURCE. To confuse those truths is unkind, unproductive and sews seeds of confusion which are not beneficial to the LIGHT OF LOVE which creator is expanding upon this, our universe.

Evil spirits (ghosts) are extremely pissed spirits who DO NOT WANT to know the truth, mostly out of FEAR and false doctrine, they will be resolved. Don’t stand next to them, they are all ready VERY uncomfortable….

You are eternal….PERIOD….

Conspiracy theories…are DOGMA!

@I-AM-A-CHRISTIAN (#42)

>>”Conspiracy theories…are DOGMA!”

Why are you talking about conspiracy theories now? Is it a new approach to tell us yet again that we a delusional?

From Wikipedia:
“Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from”

I’m not sure which conspiracy theories you have researched, but unless we are talking “Elvis is still alive” most are actually discussed and evidence is shared unlike what you seem to think.

When the evidence becomes so overwhelming then “yes” you can begin to call it dogma, that is being suppressed by people that are in denial or have vested interested in keeping the truth from coming out.

But perhaps you can share what specific conspiracy theories you are referring to?

In Light & Peace

God is calling every soul.
Christ said to, “Go everywhere, and preach to all, and baptize in the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”

As I have freely received, so I freely give!

————————————————————–
The belief in past lives used to be mainly a belief in Eastern religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism, but now is a central tenet of much woo-woo like dianetics and channeling. In those ancient Eastern religions, reincarnation was not considered a good thing, but a bad thing. To achieve the state of ultimate bliss (nirvana) is to escape from the wheel of rebirth. In most, if not all, ancient religions with a belief in reincarnation, the soul entering a body is seen as a metaphysical demotion, a sullying and impure rite of passage. In New Age religions, however, being born again seems to be a kind of perverse goal. Prepare yourself in this life for who or what you want to come back as in the next life. Belief in past lives also opens the door for New Age therapies such as past life regression therapy, which seeks the causes of today’s psychological problems in the experiences of previous lives.

Channeling, like past life regression, is distinct from reincarnation, even though it is based on the same essential concept: death does not put an end to the entirety of one’s being. In classical reincarnation, something of the consciousness of the deceased somehow enters a new body but as that body grows only one unified consciousness persists through time. Channeling might be called temporary intermittent past life invasion because there is a coming and going of the past life entity, which always remains distinct from the present self-conscious being. For example, JZ Knight claims that in 1977 the spirit of a Cro-Magnon warrior who once lived in Atlantis took over her body in order to pass on bits of wisdom he’d picked up over the centuries. Knight seems to be carrying on the work of Jane Roberts and Robert Butts, who in 1972 hit the market with Seth Speaks. Knight, Roberts, and Butts are indebted to Edgar Cayce, who claimed to be in touch with many of his past lives. One would think that channeling might muck things up a bit. After all, if various spirits from the past can enter any body at any time without destroying the present person, it is possible that when one remembers a past life it is actually someone else’s life one is remembering.

Found this just after I posted and thought it was fitting:

____________

Channeler:
Magenta Pixie
LAUGH YOUR WAY TO ASCENSION

When laughter occurs within the human, the vibrational frequency of the individual is raised. The DNA and the cellular aspect of the individual responds to laughter as it does to the sacred tones, as it does to DNA activating aspects within music.
A powerful healing effect takes place and the electromagnetic fields and all that is the individual becomes lighter. The healing effect of laughter occurs within the individual and all their multidimensional aspects and selves, parallel counterparts and out of time incarnations for Laughter within one being transcends beyond that one being, the frequency of laughter, joy and fun takes it’s place within the planetary grid of Light becoming available then for all.

The universal source energy holds the frequency of laughter and the conduits on Earth who communicate with the individualised archetypes of source energy are often surprised at their level of humour. The humour displayed by the archetypes of source energy and the beings that vibrate with a Christ Consciousness energy field is that of high intelligence and the conduit that communicates with this energy often takes on this level of intelligent humour.

Many who bring wit and humour into their conversation or their writings are conduits for the higher dimensional energies even whilst they may not consciously know this to be so. So how then can one embrace humour and laughter and allow it to help one’s Ascension process.

Much of the humour, laughter and joy within the conduits of Light, Wayshowers and starseeds is there within so naturally, having been retained within since birth into their current incarnation that laughter flows with ease, often at many different things that others may not find so amusing. For when one looks with the multidimensional eye one can find humour in all things – for indeed the energy of laughter and fun is there in all things.

Laughter within one who has a pure heart, moves one into the positive service-to-others frequency and when one is a conduit – one sees clearly the timelines of positive outcome that exist and are there waiting from your perspective to come into manifestation.

When Starseeds, Lightworkers and Ascending ones come together in laughter and joy – the frequencies created are magnified for lightening up with laughter is your inner crystal. Crystals work individually yet create the greatest power when they join together, as one, creating a consciousness within the whole that becomes it’s own entity. This is how the fractal works and opening to joy and laughter with others creates this fractal.

Learning to balance the ability to laugh with the emotion of compassion – understanding how suffering plays it’s part within your growth – how laughter can be it’s nemesis but also it’s friend is all part of the inner discovery one goes through as they Ascend and raise their vibrations.

When the human laughs with joy, blending with the humour of the higher self, laughing with a pure heart, with true joy, without ego, that human holds the golden key that unlocks the door to bliss. In this one realises how joy and all it’s forms are one of the greatest tools to Ascension – for bliss is the key to space travel, time travel and the ability to move within dimensions at will.

WE ARE THE WHITE WINGED COLLECTIVE CONSCIOUSNESS OF NINE

To my friend MKN: You wondered how the poem “Little Soul and the Sun” relates to the GF. From what I read, they mention how bad things happen to good people (in the poem). I reckon it is all how you interpret the world around you. The GF is all about personal sovereignty, and taking personal responsibility for one’s life and daily actions. Remember, victim consciousness is only a mindset that can be transmuted in a twinkling of an eye! Remember who you really are, and the great light that you bear…

Re: I-AM-A-CHRISTIAN

It is my considered, albeit not particularly humble, opinion that this entity has a very closed mind; we have all tried to be kind and gentle but said entity seems to have no desire to explore the possibilities of truth.

My suggestion would be that none of us bother to respond to any further posts from this person unless they express genuine curiosity regarding the subject matter of this site.

Dear ones,

We’re now in the pleasant position to announce, that we’re preparing to present to you the final arrangements that are needed in the next few years that in their turn, will lead you to the process of transformation to become: THE GALACTIC CHRISTIAN!

Dude you are without a doubt, as wack as it gets, that comes from a related brain infection, I’m sure, check for some odd dripping from your ear, Paleeeez

Former Assassin, you pseudohistory is quite absurd. I had a nice chuckle. As a matter of fact, I sent an email copy to both my uncle and my grandfather ( Both are professors of History) so that they may laugh, too.

Now, before I go into REAL history, allow me make a point: There are many atheists who hate CHristianity, such as Richard Dawkins. These men are ALWAYS belief in God. If the crap you posted was ACTUAL history, then those atheists would be shouting it left and right. The reason that they don’t is because… IT IS NOT HISTORY!!!

Here we go now.

First I present to you a translation the BOTD to show your ignorance of research:
BOOK OF THE DEAD, CHAPTER 125
[The dead will say:]
Homage to you, Great God, the Lord of the double Ma’at (Truth)!
I have come to you, my Lord,
I have brought myself here to behold your beauties.
I know you, and I know your name,
And I know the names of the two and forty gods,
Who live with you in the Hall of the Two Truths, 1
Who imprison the sinners, and feed upon their blood,
On the day when the lives of men are judged in the presence of Osiris. 2
In truth, you are “The Twin Sisters with Two Eyes,” 3 and “The Daughters of the Two Truths.”
In truth, I now come to you, and I have brought Maat to you,
And I have destroyed wickedness for you.
I have committed no evil upon men.
I have not oppressed the members of my family.
I have not wrought evil in the place of right and truth.
I have had no knowledge of useless men.
I have brought about no evil.
I did not rise in the morning and expect more than was due to me.
I have not brought my name forward to be praised.
I have not oppressed servants.
I have not scorned any god.
I have not defrauded the poor of their property.
I have not done what the gods abominate.
I have not cause harm to be done to a servant by his master.
I have not caused pain.
I have caused no man to hunger.
I have made no one weep.
I have not killed.
I have not given the order to kill.
I have not inflicted pain on anyone.
I have not stolen the drink left for the gods in the temples.
I have not stolen the cakes left for the gods in the temples.
I have not stolen the cakes left for the dead in the temples.
I have not fornicated.
I have not polluted myself.
I have not diminished the bushel when I’ve sold it.
I have not added to or stolen land.
I have not encroached on the land of others.
I have not added weights to the scales to cheat buyers.
I have not misread the scales to cheat buyers.
I have not stolen milk from the mouths of children.
I have not driven cattle from their pastures.
I have not captured the birds of the preserves of the gods.
I have not caught fish with bait made of like fish.
I have not held back the water when it should flow.
I have not diverted the running water in a canal.
I have not put out a fire when it should burn.
I have not violated the times when meat should be offered to the gods.
I have not driven off the cattle from the property of the gods.
I have not stopped a god in his procession through the temple, 4
I am pure.
I am pure.
I am pure.
I am pure.
My purity is the purity the great Bennu (heron) in Heracleopolis. 5
Behold, I am the nose of the God of Breath, 6 who gives life to the people,
On the day of completing the Eye of Ra 7 in Heliopolis, 8
On the last day of the second month of winter,
In the presence of the pharaoh of this land.
I have seen the the Eye of Horus when it was full in Heliopolis!
Therefore, let no evil befall me in this land
In this Hall of the Two Truths,
Because I know the names of all the gods within it,
And all the followers of the great God.

The negative confession and the naming of the forty-two gods
Hail, Long-Strider who comes from Heliopolis, I have not done iniquity.
Hail, Embraced-by Fire who comes from Kher-aha, I have not robbed with violence.
Hail, Divine-Nose who comes from Khemmenu, I have not done violence to another man.
Hail, Shade-Eater who comes from the caverns which produce the Nile, I have not committed theft.
Hail, Neha-hau who comes from Re-stau, I have not killed man or woman.
Hail, double Lion God who comes from heaven, I have not lightened the bushel.
Hail, Flint-Eyes who comes from Sekhem, I have not acted deceitfully.
Hail, Flame who comes backwards, I have not stolen what belongs to the gods.
Hail, Bone-Crusher who comes from Heracleopolis, I have not lied.
Hail, Flame-Grower who comes from Memphis, I have not carried away food.
Hail, Qerti 9 who comes from the west, I have not uttered evil words.
Hail, Shining-Tooth who comes from Ta-She, I have attacked no man.
Hail, Blood-Consumer who comes from the house of slaughter, I have not slaughtered sacred cattle.
Hail, Entrail-Consumer who comes from the mabet chamber, I have not cheated.
Hail, God of Maat who comes from the city of twin Maati, 10 I have not laid waste lands which have been ploughed.
Hail, Backward-Walker who comes from Bubastis, I have not pried mischievously into others’ affairs.
Hail, Aati who comes from Heliopolis, I have not foolishly set my mouth in motion against another man.
Hail, doubly evil who comes from Ati, I have not given way to wrath without cause.
Hail, serpent Amenti who comes from the house of slaughter, I have not defiled the wife of a man.
Hail, you who look at what is brought to you who comes from the Temple of Amsu, I have not pollluted myself.
Hail, Chief of the Princes who comes from Nehatu, I have not terrified any man.
Hail, Destroyer who comes from the Lake of Kaui, I have not trespassed sacred grounds.
Hail, Speech-Orderer who comes from the Urit, I have not been angry.
Hail, Child who comes from the Lake of Heqat, I have not made myself deaf to Maat. 11
Hail, Disposer-of-Speech who comes from Unes, I have not stirred up strife.
Hail, Basti who comes from the Secret City, I have made no one to weep.
Hail, Backwards-Face who comes from the Dwelling, I have committed no acts of impurity nor have I had sexual intercourse with a man.
Hail, Leg-of-Fire who comes from the Akheku, I have not eaten my heart. 12
Hail, Kenemti who comes from Kenemet, I have not abused anyone.
Hail, Offering-Bringer who comes from Sais, I have not acted with violence.
Hail, Lord-of-Faces who comes from Tchefet, I have not judged hastily.
Hail, Giver-of-Knowledge who comes from Unth, I have not taken vengeance on a god.
Hail, Lord-of-Two-Horns who comes from Satiu, I have not spoken too much.
Hail, Nefer-Tem who comes from Memphis, I have not acted with deceit nor have I performed wickedness.
Hail, Tem-Sep who comes from Tattu, I have not cursed the king.
Hail, Heart-Laborer who comes from Tebti, I have not polluted the water.
Hail, Ahi-of-the-water who comes from Nu, I have not been haughty.
Hail, Man-Commander, who comes from Sau, I have not cursed the god.
Hail, Neheb-nefert who comes from the Lake of Nefer, I have not been insolent.
Hail, Neheb-kau who comes from your city, I have not been sought distinctions.
Hail, Holy-Head who comes from your dwelling, I have not increased my wealth, except with such things as were mine.
Hail, Arm-Bringer who comes from the the Underworld, I have not scorned the god of my city.

Address to the gods of the underworld
Hail, gods, who dwell in the house of the Two Truths.
I know you and I know your names.
Let me not fall under your slaughter-knives,
And do not bring my wickedness to Osiris, 13 the god you serve.
Let no evil come to me from you.
Declare me right and true in the presence of Osiris,
Because I have done what is right and true in Egypt.
I have not cursed a god.
I have not suffered evil through the king who ruled my day.

Hail , gods who dwell in the Hall of the Two Truths,
Who have no evil in your bodies, who live upon maat ,
Who feed upon maat in the presence of Horus
Who lives within his divine disk. 14
Deliver me from the god Baba,
Who lives on the entrails of the mighty ones on the day of the great judgement.
Grant that I may come to you,
For I have committed no faults,
I have not sinned,
I have not done evil,
I have not lied,
Therefore let nothing evil happen to me.
I live on maat , and I feed on maat,
I have performed the commandments of me and the things pleasing to the gods,
I have made the god to be at peace with me,
I have acted according to his will.
I have given bread to the hungry man, and water to the thirsty man,
And clothes to the naked man, and a boat to the boatless.
I have made holy offerings to the gods,
and meals for the dead.
Deliver me, protect me, accuse me not in the presence of Osiris.
I am pure of mouth and pure of hands,
Therefore, let all who see me welcome me,
For I have heard the mighty word which the spiritual bodies spoke to the Cat,
In the House of Hapt-Re, the Open-Mouthed;
I gave testimony before the god Hra-f-ha-f, the Backwards-Face,
I have the branching out of the ished-tree in Re-stau. 15
I have offered prayers to the gods and I know their persons.
I have come and I have advanced to declare maat,
And to set the balance upon what supports it in the Underworld.
Hail, you who are exalted upon your standard, Lord of the Atefu crown,
Who name is “God of Breath”, deliver me from your divine messengers,
Who cause fearful deeds, and calamities,
Who are without coverings for their faces,
For I have done maat for the Lord of maat.
I have purified myself and my breast, my lower parts, with the things which make clean.
My inner parts have been in the Pool of maat.
I have been purified in the Pool of the south,
And I have rested in the northern city which is in the Field of the Grasshoppers, 16
Where the sacred sailors of Ra bathe at the second hour of the night and third hour of the day.
And the hearts of the gods are pleased after they have passed through it,
Whether by day or by night.

The first examination
They 17 say, “Come forward.
They say, “Who are you,”
They say, “What is your name?”
“I am the he who is equipped under the flowers, the-dweller-in-the-moringa 18 is my name.”
They say, “Where have you passed?”
“I have passed by the town north of the moringa.”
They say, “What did you see there?”
“The Leg and the Thigh.”
They say, “What then did you say to them?”
“Let me see rejoicings in the lands of the Fenkhu.” 19
“What did they give you?”
“A flame of fire and a tablet of crystal.”
“What did you do with them?”
“I buried them by the furrow of Maaty as things for the night.”
“What did you find there by the furrow of Maaty?”
“A scepter of flint, the name of which is “Giver of Breath.’”
“What did you do to the flame of fire and the tablet of crystal after you buried them?”
“I uttered words over them in the furrow, and I dug them up; I extinguished the fire, and I broke the tablet, and I threw it in the pool of Maaty.”
“Come, then, and enter in the door of this Hall of the Two Truths, for you know us.”

The second examination
“We will not let you enter in through us,” says the bolts of the door, “unless you
tell us our names.”
“‘Tongue-of-the-Balance-of-the-Place-of-Truth’ is your name.”
“I will not let you enter in by me,” says the right side of this door, “unless you tell me my name.”
“‘Valance-of-the-Support-of-Maat’ is your name.”
“I will not let you enter in by me,” says the left side of the door, “unless you tell me my name.”
“‘Balance-of-Wine’ is your name.”
“I will not let you pass over me,” says the threshold of this door, “unless you tell me my name.”
“‘Ox-of-God-Seb’ is your name.”
“I will not open for you,” says the fastening of this door, “unless you tell me my name.”
“‘Flesh-of-his-Mother’ is your name.”
“I will not open for you,” says the socket of the fastening of this door, “unless you tell me my name.”
“‘Living-Eye-of-the-Crocodile-God-Lord-of-Bakhau’ is your name.”
“I will not open for you, and I will not let you enter in by me,” says the guardian of this door, “unless you tell me my name.”
“‘Elbow-of-the-God-Shu-that-protecs-Osiris’ is your name.”
“We will not let you enter in by us,” say the posts of this door, “unless you tell us our name.”
“‘Children-of-the-Cobra-Goddess’ is your name.”
“You know us, therefore, pass by us.”

The third examination
“I will not let you tread upon me,” says the floor of this hall of the Two Truths,
“Because I am silent and I am holy and do not know the names of your two feet,
Therefore, tell me their names.”
“‘Traveller-of-the-God-Khas’ is the name of my right foot,
“‘Staff-of-the-Goddess-Hathor’ is the name of my left foot.”
“You know me, therefore pass over me.”
“I will not announce you,” says the guardian of this door of this Hall of the Two Truths, “unless you tell me my name.”
“‘Discerner-of-Hearts and Searcher-of-the-Reins’ is your name.”
“Now I will announce you, but who is the god that dwells in this hour?”
“The-Keeper-of-the-Record-of-the-Two-Lands.” 20
“Who then is The-Keeper-of-the-Record-of-the-Two-Lands?”
“It is Thoth.”

The fourth examination
“Come,” says Thoth, “why have you come?”
“I have come and I press forward so that I may be announced.”
“What now is your condition?”
“I am purified from evil things,
I am protected from the evil deeds of those who live in their days:
I am not among them.”
“Now I will announce you.
But who is he whose heaven is fire, whose walls are cobras, and whose floor is a stream of water?
Who is he, I say?”
“He is Osiris.”
“Come forward, then, you will be announced to him.
Your cakes will come from the Eye 21 of Ra, your beer from the Eye, your meals of the dead from the Eye.
This has been decreed for the Osiris the overseer of the house of the overseer of the seal, Nu, triumphant.”

This shall be said by the deceased after he has been cleaned and purified, and when he is arrayed in apparel, and is shod with white leather sandals, and his eyes have been painted with antimony, and his bodya has been anointed with oil, and when he offers oxen, and birds, and incense, and cakes, and beer, and garden herbs. Behold, you will draw a representation of this in color upon a new tile molded from earth upon which neither a pig nor other animals have stepped. And if you do this book on it, the deceased shall flourish, and his children shall flourish, and his name shall never fall into oblivion, and he shall be as one who fills the heart of the king and his princes. And bread, and cakes, and sweetmeats, and wine, and pieces of flesh shall be given to him upon the altar of the great god; and he shall not be turned back at any door in the Underworld, and he shall be brought in along with the kings of Upper and Lower Egypt, and he shall be in the train of Osiris, continually and forever.

Effective a million times.

Jesus and Horus
For those unfamiliar with the Horus story, Horus is a character in Egyptian mythology, the son of the gods Isis and Osiris. There actually appear to be multiple dieties named ‘Horus’, but the one who is the son of Isis and Osiris is the one the critics claim influenced the Jesus story. For a quick and unbiased debunking of this story, go to any search engine and find a site on Egyptian mythology and read the Horus story for yourself (I’ve provided some links at the bottom of the page), or check the mythology section at your local library (go ahead, I dare you!). Acharya S’s book “The Christ Conspiracy” is the apparent source of this list, but the author provides evidentiarly footnotes for only five of the claims, and those footnotes frequently disagree with her own claims!

Here are the claims of parallels between Jesus and Horus, with my responses:

1) Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave/manger with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men.

Let’s take this one apart and deal with each separate issue:

Horus’ mother was not a virgin. She was married to Osiris, and there is no reason to suppose she was abstinent after marriage. Horus was, per the story, miraculously conceived. Seth had killed and dismembered Osiris, then Isis put her husband’s dead body back together and had intercourse with it. In some versions, she used a hand-made phallus since she wasn’t able to find that part of her husband. So while it was a miraculous conception, it was not a virgin birth.

Horus was given three different birthdates in mythology, one of which does correspond to December 25th. But since Jesus wasn’t, per the evidence, born on 12/25, this isn’t a parallel.

“Meri” (technically “Mr-ee”) is the egyptian word for “beloved” and was apparently applied to Isis prior to Jesus’ time, as a title, not as part of her name. But since there were probably thousands of women between Horus’ time and Jesus’ with a name or title that was a variation on “Mary”, there’s no real reason to suppose that Jesus’ mother was named after Isis in particular. Even if, hypothetically, the Gospel authors themselves fabricated Jesus’ mother and decided to name her “Mary”, it’s far more likely that they named her after other women from around their time named “Mary” than it is that they named her after “Isis-Meri”

Horus was born in a swamp, not a cave/manger. Acharya’s footnotes for this point only make the claim that Jesus was born in a cave, and say nothing about Horus being born in one.

Horus’ birth was not announced by a star in the east

There were no “three wise men” at Horus’ birth, or at Jesus’ for that matter (the Bible never gives the number of wise men, and they showed up at Jesus’ home, not at the manger, probably when Jesus was a year or two old).

Acharya’s source for the last two claims appears to be Massey, who says “the Star in the East that arose to announce the birth of the babe (Jesus) was Orion, which is therefore called the star of Horus. That was once the star of the three kings; for the ‘three kings’ is still a name of three stars in Orion’s belt . . . ” Massey’s apparently getting mixed up, and then the critics are misinterpreting it. Orion is not a star, but a constellation, of which there are three stars in a row making up the belt of Orion. However, there is no evidence that these three stars were called the “Three Kings” prior to Jesus’ time, nor even prior to the 19th century, for that matter.

And even if there is a specific star called ‘the star of Horus’, there’s no legend stating that it announced Horus’ birth (as the critics are claiming) or that the three stars in Orion’s belt attended Horus’ birth in any way.

2) His earthly father was named “Seb” (”Joseph”).

First of all, there is no parallel between the Egyptian name “Seb” and the Hebrew name “Joseph”, other than the fact that they’re common names. Also, Seb was Osiris’ father, not Horus’.

3) He was of royal descent.

This one’s true! But it’s not really a comparison to Jesus. When followers speak of Jesus being of ‘royal descent’, they usually mean His being a descendent of King David, an earthly king. Horus was, according to the myth, descended from heavenly royalty (as Jesus was), being the son of the main god.

4) At age 12, he was a child teacher in the Temple, and at 30, he was baptized, having disappeared for 18 years.

He never taught in any temple and was never baptized. Also, Jesus didn’t ‘disappear’ in the years between His teaching in the temple and baptism. He worked humbly as a carpenter.

5) Horus was baptized in the river Eridanus or Iarutana (Jordan) by “Anup the Baptizer” (”John the Baptist”), who was decapitated.

Again, Horus was never baptized. There is no “Anup the Baptizer” in the story.

6) He had 12 disciples, two of whom were his “witnesses” and were named “Anup” and “Aan” (the two “Johns”).

Horus had four disciples (called ‘Heru-Shemsu’). There’s another reference to sixteen followers, and a group of followers called ‘mesnui’ (blacksmiths) who join Horus in battle, but are never numbered. But there’s no reference to twelve followers or any of them being named “Anup” or “Aan”.

7) He performed miracles, exorcised demons and raised El-Azarus (”El-Osiris”), from the dead.

He did perform miracles, but he never exorcised demons or raised his father from the dead. Also, Osiris is never referred to as ‘El-Azarus’ or ‘El-Osiris’ (clearly an attempt to make his name more closely resemble the Bible’s “Lazarus”).

8) Horus walked on water.

No, he did not.

9) His personal epithet was “Iusa,” the “ever-becoming son” of “Ptah,” the “Father.” He was thus called “Holy Child.”

Horus was never referred to as “Iusa” (nor was anyone in Egyptian history – the word does not exist) or “Holy Child”.

10) He delivered a “Sermon on the Mount” and his followers recounted the “Sayings of Iusa.”

Horus never delivered such a sermon, and, as pointed out above, he was never referred to as “Iusa”.

11) Horus was transfigured on the Mount.

No, he was not.

12) He was crucified between two thieves, buried for three days in a tomb, and resurrected.

Horus was never crucified. There’s an unofficial story in which he dies and is cast in pieces into the water, then later fished out by a crocodile at Isis’ request. This unofficial story is the only one in which he dies at all.

13) He was also the “Way, the Truth, the Light,” “Messiah,” “God’s Anointed Son,” the “Son of Man,” the “Good Shepherd,” the “Lamb of God,” the “Word made flesh,” the “Word of Truth,” etc.

The only titles Horus is given are “Great God”, “Chief of the Powers”, “Master of Heaven”, and “Avenger of His Father”. None of the above titles are in any Egyptian mythology.

14) He was “the Fisher” and was associated with the Fish (”Ichthys”), Lamb and Lion.

He was never referred to as “the fisher”, and there are no lamb or lion in any of the stories. Acharya S.’s footnotes on this claim only show an association with fish (which is that Horus WAS a fish, unlike Jesus), with no evidence of his being called ‘the fisher’ or having any association with a lamb or lion.

15) He came to fulfill the Law.

There was no “law” he was supposed to fulfill.

16) Horus was called “the KRST,” or “Anointed One.”

He was never referred to by either of these titles. “Krst”, in Egyptian, means “burial”, by the way. It wasn’t a title.

17) Like Jesus, “Horus was supposed to reign one thousand years.”

No mention of this in Egyptian mythology.

EASTER
The word Easter appears once in the King James version of the Bible.Herod has put Peter in prison, “intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people” (Acts 12:4). Yet in the original Greek text the word is not Easter, but Pesach, that is Passover. So why was the name changed? Please read on…

“Asherah” the Greek form of this word from the Septuagint is “Astarte”, who is the Babylonian goddess of the sea, sea being symbolic of people, and consort of the god El. She was the mother of several gods, including Ba’al, the Babylonian god of the sun. These deities were soon adopted by the Canaanites when they named these female deities the Asherah or Asherim. These deities were made of wood carved from a type of evergreen tree, or often they were set up in Canaanite homes as full trees cut down from a forest. The Asherim normally were highly acknowledged during two specific occasions. First and foremost, they were the fertility gods of the spring equinox, when the days and nights were approximately the same in length, signifying the beginning of living things growing for the summer season. A very common practice in the Canaanite religion was performed on the first Sunday of the equinox. The families would face east to await the rising of the sun, which was the chief symbol of the sun god, Ba’al. Later on during the day, the children of the Canaanite parents would often go and hunt for eggs, which were symbolic of sex, fertility and new life. It was believed that these eggs came from rabbits, which in the pagan world were symbolic of lust, sexual prowess and reproduction. The Canaanites, however, were not the only ones who worshiped rabbits as deities. The Egyptians and the Persians (Babylon) also held rabbits in high esteem because they believed that rabbits first came from the divine Phoenix birds, who once ruled the ancient skies until they were attacked by other gods in a power struggle. When they were struck down, they reincarnated into rabbits, but kept the ability to produce eggs like the ancient birds to show their origins.

Other stories concerning the egg rose later in the Middle Ages by the Anglo-Saxons, where they believed the origin of the Universe had the earth being hatched out of an enormous egg. Decorating eggs came about to honor their pagan gods and were often presented as gifts to other families to bring them fertility and sexual success during the coming year. And secondly, they were highly worshiped and celebrated during the winter solstice. As according to Jer. 10:1-5; Is. 40:19-20; 41:7 and 44:9-20, the pagans would go out into the forest and do one of two things. Either they chopped down a tree and carved a female deity out of it, or they would simply bring the tree into the house and decorate it with gold and silver ornaments symbolizing the sun and the moon while nailing a stand on the bottom so it would not totter or tip over.

Out of this practice came many other variations of these pagan festivals until the Roman Catholic Church adopted the Asherah worship and named it EASTER around 155 A.D. According to the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, Easter was named after a pagan goddess of the Anglo-Saxons named Eostre, the goddess of the dawn. A great controversy arose between the Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox Church in 325 A.D. on whether to celebrate Easter on Sundays or on whatever day the Jewish Passover fell upon.

NEW TESTAMENT

The New Testament was not “created” as you claim.
The process of canonization was complex and lengthy. It was characterized by a compilation of books that the apostolic tradition considered authoritative in worship and teaching, relevant to the historical situations in which they lived, and consonant with the Old Testament.

Contrary to popular misconception, the New Testament canon was not summarily decided in large, bureaucratic Church council meetings, but rather developed over many centuries.

Thus, McDonald states:[14]

Although a number of Christians have thought that church councils determined what books were to be included in the biblical canons, a more accurate reflection of the matter is that the councils recognized or acknowledged those books that had already obtained prominence from usage among the various early Christian communities.

Similarly, from Patzia:[15]

It appears that the books that finally were canonized are those that enjoyed a special status and were utilized both frequently and universally by the church.

However, this is not to say that no councils touched the issue of the canon. Some of these include the Council of Trent (also called the Tridentine Council) of 1546 for Roman Catholicism (by vote: 24 yea, 15 nay, 16 abstain),[16] the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the Church of England, the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 for Calvinism, and the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 for Eastern Orthodoxy. Although these councils did include statements about the canon, they were only reaffirming the existing canon which was reached by mutual agreement over many centuries—they were just making it official.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Canon of the New Testament: “The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council.”

One of the earliest attempts at solidifying a canon was made by Marcion, c. 140 AD, who accepted only a modified version of Luke (Gospel of Marcion) and ten of Paul’s letters, while rejecting the Old Testament entirely. His unorthodox canon was rejected by a majority of Christians, as was he and his theology, Marcionism. Adolf Harnack in Origin of the New Testament (1914)[3] argued that the orthodox Church at this time was largely an Old Testament Church (one that “follows the Testament of the Creator-God”) without a New Testament canon and that it gradually formulated its New Testament canon in response to the challenge posed by Marcion.[17]

The Muratorian fragment, dated at between 170 (based on an internal reference to Pope Pius I and arguments put forth by Bruce Metzger) and as late as the end of the 4th century (according to the Anchor Bible Dictionary), provides the earliest known New Testament canon attributed to mainstream (that is, not Marcionite) Christianity. It is similar, but not identical, to the modern New Testament canon.

The oldest clear endorsement of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John being the only legitimate gospels was made in the year 180. It was a claim made by Bishop Irenaeus in his polemic Against the Heresies, for example III.XI.8: “It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the “pillar and ground” of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh.”

At least, then, the books considered to be authoritative included the four gospels and many of the letters of Paul. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian (all 2nd century) held the letters of Paul to be on par with the Hebrew Scriptures as being divinely inspired, yet others rejected him. Other books were held in high esteem but were gradually relegated to the status of New Testament Apocrypha.

Eusebius, c. 300, gave a detailed list of New Testament writings in his Ecclesiastical History Book 3, Chapter XXV:

“1… First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels; following them the Acts of the Apostles… the epistles of Paul… the epistle of John… the epistle of Peter… After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. These then belong among the accepted writings.”

“3 Among the disputed writings [Antilegomena], which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. Among the rejected [Kirsopp Lake translation: "not genuine"] writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews… And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books.”

“6… such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles… they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics. Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious.”

Revelation is counted as both accepted (Kirsopp Lake translation: “Recognized”) and disputed, which has caused some confusion over what exactly Eusebius meant by doing so. From other writings of the Church Fathers, we know that it was disputed with several canon lists rejecting its canonicity. EH 3.3.5 adds further detail on Paul: “Paul’s fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed. It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul.” EH 4.29.6 mentions the Diatessaron: “But their original founder, Tatian, formed a certain combination and collection of the Gospels, I know not how, to which he gave the title Diatessaron, and which is still in the hands of some. But they say that he ventured to paraphrase certain words of the apostle [Paul], in order to improve their style.”[18]

The New Testament canon as it is now was first listed by St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in 367, in a letter written to his churches in Egypt, Festal Letter 39. Also cited is the Council of Rome, but not without controversy. That canon gained wider and wider recognition until it was accepted at the Third Council of Carthage in 397. Even this council did not settle the matter, however. Certain books continued to be questioned, especially James and Revelation. Even as late as the 16th century, theologian and reformer Martin Luther questioned (but in the end did not reject) the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Book of Revelation. Even today, German-language Luther Bibles are printed with these four books at the end of the canon, rather than their traditional order for other Christians. Due to the fact that some of the recognized Books of the Holy Scripture were having their canonicity questioned by Protestants in the 16th century, the Council of Trent reaffirmed the traditional canon (that is for Catholics the canon of the Council of Rome) of the Scripture as a dogma of the Catholic Church.

CHRISTMAS
I refer you to the paper: Christmas is Not Pagan, by Dr. Richard Bucher

By Dr. Richard P. Bucher

Since authoring the articles on the Origin of the Christmas Tree and Santa Claus two years ago, I have received dozens of e-mail from readers who scolded me for celebrating Christmas at all. In one form or another, some with kindness, some with invective, they all asserted, “Don’t you know that Christmas is based on pagan festivals and customs? Therefore to celebrate it is to embrace paganism and to sin against God.” In most cases the e-mailers admonished me to dig deeper into the “real” origin of Christmas. So I followed their advice – in a way. I began searching the web for others who held this position, and found a multitude of articles.

Consider the following quotations as examples. In his “Is Christmas Christian?,” Michael Schneider states:

This may be a shocking thought to some: but after wrestling with the question for several years now, searching the scriptures and church history, I have come to the conclusion that there is nothing Christian about Christmas; that in its present observance, as well as in its origin, Christmas is basically and essentially pagan.

What I’m saying, then, is that the real Christmas has always been pagan, and to make it a Christian celebration is to try to add Christ or biblical elements to an essentially pagan holiday.

Rick Meisel echoes this sentiment in “Tis the Season for Pagan Worship”:

What many in Christendom have been celebrating–Christmas–is a thoroughly pagan holiday–in its origin, in its trappings, and in all its traditions.

The modern conservative cry to put Christ back into Christmas is absurd. Jesus Christ was never in Christmas.

I carefully read these and other articles and books because I wanted to know the basis for their argumentation. What I found is that, though there are minor differences, they all make the same basic argument and recycle the same reasons why Christmas is pagan [by "pagan" the various authors mean "non-Christian religions."].

Their argument is this: “Christmas is obviously pagan because:

* There is neither Biblical command or precedent for it;
* Christians did not observe it until the time of Constantine (after 313 AD); only then did the Church of Rome introduce it;
* The Date of Christmas and its many customs all come from pagan sources;
* When Christians observe Christmas in any way they are participating in paganism.”

It is my position that Christmas is certainly not pagan, though many customs have gravitated to Christmas that have pagan origins. Therefore, in this article I would like to respond to those that argue that Christmas is pagan. I will attempt to show that though at times their facts are correct, in most cases their logic is not, which causes them to make false assumptions and conclusions repeatedly.

Before proceeding, however, one more observation. Most of those who argue for the pagan nature of Christmas appear to be sincere Christians who want to base everything they believe and do on the Bible. They are not fanatics. They believe in and value the incarnation and birth of Jesus Christ. It is simply their belief that the annual celebration of Christmas past and present is pagan and therefore the Christian should have no part in it.

In fact, if the “Christmas is pagan” crowd merely presented their argument as “opinion,” there would be no urgent need to respond. But it is the fact that they condemn Christmas observers as guilty of idolatry and, and in some cases, suggest that Christians who do Christmas are risking their salvation that is just too much. For in so doing they are binding Christian consciences and robbing Christians of their God-given freedom, making unnecessary matters necessary. More on this later. Now on to the analysis…

he Arguments Put Forth By Those Who Oppose Christmas

The first part of the argument that the anti-Christmas literature makes is:

(1) Christmas is obviously pagan because there is neither Biblical command nor precedent for celebrating Christ’s birth.

This is often stated in the literature. Characteristic of this argument are these comments in “Tis the Season for Pagan Worship”:

There is no Biblical warrant, precedent, nor precept for remembrance of the day of Christ’s birth as a day of special religious celebration. This is not to say that we shouldn’t remember Christ’s birth and its significance, but for religious commemorations or celebrations, we must have Biblical command or precedent!

Someone says, “I know Christmas is of pagan origin, but I still think it’s not wrong for a church to have a special time for honoring Christ’s birth.” But since when did Protestants believe that Christians have the right to add to the Bible? Is the church a legislative body? Are we to follow the Bible in our faith and practice, or the thinking of fallible men? If we have the right to add a special holy day to the Christian economy, then we can add 10,000 other things. Then we will be no better than the false cults and the Roman Catholics who follow heathen traditions!

Notice though, that we are commanded to remember Him in His death (but no special day was specified for this either)–”Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; this DO in remembrance of Me” (Luke 22:18,19; 1 Cor. 11:23-26). To commemorate His death is Scriptural. Any day of the year will do. To commemorate His birth is non-Scriptural, even extra-Scriptural (Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Prov. 30:6; Rev. 22:19), whether one chooses December 25th or any other day.

Later the same author favorably quotes a 1871 sermon by Charles Haddon Spurgeon:

We have no superstitious regard for times and seasons. Certainly we do not believe in the present ecclesiastical arrangement called Christmas . . . because we find no Scriptural warrant whatever for observing any day as the birthday of the Saviour; and consequently, its observance is a superstition, because [it's] not of divine authority.

Now it is certainly true that the Bible does not command the celebration of Christ’s birth in specific words, and I won’t pretend that there is. Is it not true, however, that Matthew and Luke included their accounts of Christ’s birth, at least in part to be read in worship? As the people responded to such readings of God’s Word in worship with their praise, were they not celebrating Christ’s birth? Moreover, it is well known that the portions of New Testament were from a very early period incorporated into the worship of the Church (e.g., the Magnificat, Mary’s song of praise in Luke 1:46-55; and the Benedictus in Luke 1:68-79); it is also well known that portions of the New Testament contain hymns or confessions used already in the Apostolic age (e.g., Phil. 2:6-11; 1 Tim. 3:16).

More to the point, however, does the silence of Scripture make celebrating Christ’s birth wrong? Is it true that when it comes to religious celebrations, the Bible must specifically give command or precedent? Is it true that creating a Christian festival is the same as adding to Scripture?

The answer to all these questions is a resounding, “No!” To say that Christians are forbidden to create a special day for worship unless it is specifically commanded in the Scriptures is ludicrous. Where did they get this idea? Actually there is a word for this: biblicism. Biblicism is the legalistic error that Christians can only do what the Bible specifically says to do. This led some of the radical reformers in the Sixteenth Century to rid their churches of organs, crosses, clergy vestments, and many other things because the Bible did not command such things.

Have these authors never heard of Christian freedom? Yes, the doctrine of the Christian Church must be based only on Scripture alone and we dare not add to or subtract from it. But in matters that do not involve doctrine, in matters that are neither commanded nor forbidden, Christians have freedom in the Church to do or say, add or create, or subtract and delete anything — unless, as I said, it clearly contradicts an essential teaching of the Christian faith, or is found by the majority not to be edifying.

This, by the way, is the meaning of our Lord’s words in Mark, which these anti-Christmas writers love to quote: “You lay aside the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men . . . making the Word of God of no effect through your tradition” (Mark 7:8,13). Jesus was not scolding the Pharisees because they had traditions. He was scolding them because (1) their man-made traditions contradicted the commandment of God and (2) they told those who didn’t follow their traditions that they were sinning, thus making them necessary matters of conscience.

Does annually celebrating Christ’s birth contradict a commandment of God or violate an essential teaching of the Bible? Not at all. Do Pastors tell their parishioners that if they do not observe Christmas they are sinning? If they do, they are wrong. Since we are not commanded to celebrate Christ’s birth annually, we are not sinning if we choose not to. But neither are we sinning if we choose to observe it. It should not be made a matter of conscience, a matter of sin, in either case.

Now some within the anti-Christmas camp would respond by saying, “Ah, but there is a passage that commands us not observe special holy days. It is wrong to celebrate Christmas because the Bible commands us not to observe “days, months, seasons, and years” in Gal. 4:9-11.

Thus, we find in “Is Christmas Christian?”:

Paul wrote to the Galatians in dismay, “Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years! I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain” (Gal. 4:10-11). He wasn’t condemning them for observing those institutions commanded by God, but for observing those of man’s making, contrary to God’s law.

Actually, the “days, months, and times, and years” to which Paul referred were Jewish holy days, about which the vast majority of Biblical commentators agree. When this passage is placed in the context of the entire letter to the Galatians, this becomes obvious. The Galatians were being taught by Jewish-Christian false teachers that faith in Jesus Christ was not enough to be justified before God, that they also had to be circumcised and follow the Law of Moses. Paul focuses on this issue in 5:2-4:

Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. 4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

The problem was not that the Galatians were observing holy days and seasons. It is that they were being taught that such observances were necessary for their salvation, a complete contradiction of the Gospel that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ. Similarly, to observe Christmas because you believe to not do so would be sinful is wrong and you would fall under Paul’s exhortation in Gal. 4 & 5. But to observe Christmas in your Christian freedom, because you choose to, not because you have to, is completely permitted before God.

In some of the literature in question, we are also informed that the Sixteenth Century reformers rejected Christmas because it was pagan, as did the Puritans in the Seventeenth. Moreover, it is stated that it wasn’t until the Nineteenth Century that Christmas was observed in Protestant denominations. The idea is, if these Bible-believing scholars rejected Christmas, shouldn’t we?

So, for example, we read in “Is Christmas Christian?”

It was for this very reason that in Calvin’s Geneva you could have been fined or imprisoned for celebrating Christmas. It was at the request of the Westminster Assembly that the English Parliament in 1644 passed an act forbidding the observance of Christmas, calling it a heathen holiday

. . . When the Puritans came to America they passed similar laws. The early New Englanders worked steadily through December 25, 1620, in studied neglect of the day. About 40 years later the General Court of Massachusetts decreed punishment for those who kept the season: “…anyone who is found observing, by abstinence from labor, feasting, or any other way, any such days as Christmas Day, shall pay for every such offense five shillings.”

It was not until the 19th century that Christmas had any religious significance in Protestant churches. Even as late as 1900, Christmas services were not held in Southern Presbyterian churches. The pcus General Assembly of 1899 declared: “There is no warrant in Scripture for the observance of Christmas and Easter as holydays (sic), rather the contrary (see Gal. 4:9-11; Col. 2:16-21), and such observance is contrary to the principles of the Reformed faith, conducive to will-worship, and not in harmony with the simplicity of the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

There is an element of truth in the above statements. It is true that many of the Reformation churches rejected or outlawed the celebration of Christmas, as did the Puritans, and some Protestant denominations after them. It is disingenuous, however, to claim that they did so because they believed Christmas to be pagan. Rather, as their statements show, they refused to observe Christmas because (1) they believed that Scripture forbade special holy days; (2) they perceived Christmas to be “Roman Catholic” based on non-Scriptural tradition; and (3) they rejected Christ-mass because they considered the Church of Rome’s mass to be contrary to the Gospel.

That reformation movements strove to distance themselves from the Pope and the Church of Rome is not at all surprising. The whole point of the Sixteenth Century Reformation was to “reform” the abuses and errors in the Christian Church of their day, which in Europe was the Church of Rome. With the resurgence of Biblical scholarship and Biblical authority, these reformers began to see that there were a multitude of teachings and practices in the Church of Rome that were “doctrines of men,” that were not found in or supported by the Word of God. In their zeal for Biblical truth, however, many of these groups tried to remove all doctrines of men and everything that smacked of the Church of Rome, including Christmas and other major holy days, ceremonies, and fasts.

But not all reformers took this approach. In fact, the original reformer, the one who launched the Reformation, Martin Luther, did not. Luther, and the reformation that followed him, only discarded those human teachings and traditions that directly contradicted the Gospel and the Scriptures. All other traditions within the Roman Church were retained if they were found to be helpful and edifying. For Luther, the doctrines of men became problematic when they made matters of conscience out of things that were not articles of faith, such as food, drink, clothing, and days. According to Luther:

We do not condemn the doctrines of men just because they are the doctrines of men, for we would gladly put up with them. But we condemn them because they are contrary to the gospel and the Scriptures. While the Scriptures liberate consciences and forbid that they be taken captive by the doctrines of men, these doctrines of men captivate the conscience anyhow (A Reply to the Texts, LW 35:153; WA 10II:91).

For this reason Luther retained many things in the Roman Church that did not contradict the Gospel, such as the liturgical calendar, some holy days, and yes, Christmas. In fact, Luther wrote many beautiful Christmas sermons (which you can read at http://www.ultranet.com/~tlclcms/mlserms.html) and hymns.

This was followed by the Lutheran Church. In one of their official confessions of faith, The Augsburg Confession of 1530, it states:

Concerning church regulations made by human beings, it is taught to keep those that may be kept without sin and that serve to maintain peace and good order in the church, such as specific celebrations, festivals, etc. However, people are also instructed not to burden consciences with them as if such things were necessary for salvation (Augsburg Confession, XV, Book of Concord. Kolb-Wengert edition).

Though at this time the Lutherans abolished numerous saints’ days, they kept other festivals, such as Christmas, because they saw them as wonderful opportunities to teach about events in the life of Christ. What the Lutherans did reject was the Church’s of Rome’s version of the mass, which made the Lord’s Supper into a re-sacrificing of Christ in order to merit God’s favor. They also wanted to see unChristian legends and songs removed from the Church’s celebration of Christmas. And they repeatedly stated that it was not sinful to fail to observe Christmas (See Instructions to Visitors, LW 40:298-299).

The Arguments Put Forth By Those Who Oppose Christmas

Argument 2: The first Christians never observed the celebration of Christ’s birth until emperor Constantine in 313 AD officially tolerated Christians.

The real argument here is that when the church was “pure” during the first three hundred years, Christmas was never celebrated. Only when the church became corrupt, during and after the time of Constantine, did the Roman Church adopt Christianity based on pagan ideas. In this scheme, Constantine is depicted as someone that willingly mixed Christianity with paganism.

As an example of this we read in “Is Christmas Christian?”

There is no indication in the New Testament that the early Christians observed Christmas at all. It can be demonstrated in church history that, for probably the first 300 years after the birth of Christ, Christians knew nothing of Christmas celebration. It was only as the Church began to drift from apostolic doctrine and practice into corruption that Christmas began.

In 313 A.D. the Roman Emperor Constantine supposedly adopted the Christian faith and declared it to be the official religion of his realm. His embracing the Christian Church proved detrimental to true Christianity. Constantine retained the traditional pagan titles, and his coins still bore the figures and names of the old Roman gods.

The Church became “the Roman Catholic Church” and its method became compromise with paganism.

And “Tis the Season for Pagan Worship” chimes in:

The fact of the matter is this–the early church did not celebrate Christ’s birth, but such celebration only came into the church with the “Christianization” of pagan rites as Catholicism was made the state religion by Constantine in the fourth century A.D.

First, it shows a total ignorance of early Church history to imagine that after the apostles there was a time that the church was “pure.” One only has to read the church fathers and other church documents to discover that in many places the Church began to drift from apostolic doctrine and practice almost from the beginning. As early as the late First Century, there arose legalistic and rigorist mindset in the church that seemed to almost forget the Biblical teaching of grace. Scattered throughout the empire were churches calling themselves Christian which were in fact gnostics, who used both the Scriptures and their own sacred literature side by side. From the time of the apostles there were countless false teachers and teachings that invaded the church, and in many cases leading entire regions astray. The followers of the false teacher, Marcion (85-160), for example, filled the Roman empire with hundreds of congregations by the end of the Second Century. There certainly was an orthodox Church, but it was anything but pure, in the sense of, “without any error.” These early Christians were beset with as many temptations and errant philosophies from the world as Christians today are.

Second, the implication that Constantine was a “pagan” emperor in disguise, because he “retained the traditional pagan titles, and his coins still bore the figures and names of the old Roman gods.” needs clarification and correction. There is a distinct difference between the Constantine from 312-323 and the Constantine from 324 and after. In 312 he became the emperor of the western part of the empire, while Licinius became emperor of the east. About this period of 312-323, the noted W. H. C. Frend observed:

And what of Constantine during these years? The evidence points to a consistent if stormy progress toward accepting the Christian God as the one to whom exclusive service must be given . . . However, until his preparations for his final campaign by 323, he did not abandon his allegiance to the Sun god, even though he regarded himself as a servant of the Christian God . . . For twelve years the two allegiances were held in uneasy tension until the “God of Battles” claimed his own . . . The liberation of Rome was attributed to the Sun on a Medallion struck at the time. Soli Invicto Comiti continued to dominate the coinage. While other Western issues show the Sun’s orb resting on an altar. The protection of the gods of the empire did not disappear from the coins until after c. 319. (W. H. C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity, Fortress Press, 1985, 484).

After 324 all this changed. In 324 Constantine defeated Licinius at the Battle of Chrysopolis, and he became sole ruler of the Roman empire. Now his ardor for Christianity new no bounds. In fact, so disgusted was he by the paganism of Rome, that he moved the capital of the empire to Byzantium, finishing it in 330, and renaming it Constantinople. He forbade pagan sacrifices and he decreed that there were to be no idolatrous worship and no pagan festivals of any kind.

Thus, there is no evidence that the “pagan” Constantine was somehow responsible for combining the celebration of Christ’s birth with paganism by moving it to Dec. 25. If anything, the evidence shows a Constantine who became so committed to the Christian faith that he was steadily moving toward disallowing all paganism.

It is also an anachronism that during the time of Constantine, that the “Church became the Roman Catholic Church,” or that “Catholicism was made the state religion by Constantine in the 4th Century.” Actually it was Theodosius I who decreed that Christianity was the official religion of the empire in 379. There was no “Roman Catholic Church” in the Fourth Century. That name only came into existence after the Sixteenth Century Reformation. It is true that Theodosius made “Catholicism” the state religion, if by “Catholicism” one means true Christians over against heretics. The see of Rome was highly honored, but held no special position of superiority at that time.

Thirdly, while it is true that Christmas (the birth of Christ) was not listed as one of the chief Christian festivals in the first two centuries of the Church’s existence, it is not exactly true that the first Christians never observed the birth of Christ until the time of Constantine. Actually there is evidence of the feast being celebrated in Egypt prior to 200 A.D. The Church father Clement of Alexandria tells us that certain theologians had claimed to have determined not only the year of the Lord’s birth but also the day; that it took place in the 28th year of Augustus and on the 25th day of Pachon (May 20) (Stromata, I, 21). He also added that others said that he was born on the 24th or 25th of Pharmuthi (April 19 or 20). Another piece of evidence is De Paschae Computus of 243, which states that Christ was born on March 28, because, it says, this was the day that the sun was created. Clement also tells us that other Christians were in the custom of celebrating the Baptism of Christ (his Epiphany) on the 15th day of Tubi and others on the 11th of the same month (Jan. 10 or 6). This is significant because it became customary in many places for Christians to celebrate both Christ’s epiphany and his birth at the same – a practice of the Armenian Church to this day.

The Arguments Put Forth By Those Who Oppose Christmas

(3) The date of Christmas (December 25), and its many customs all come from pagan sources. Therefore Christmas is pagan.

It is when the “Christmas is pagan” literature examines the origin of the dating of Christmas on Dec. 25, that the anti-Christmas advocates become convinced that Christmas is wholly pagan. This is their strongest argument. The argument goes like this: Since no one knows when Jesus was born, where did the Church get the idea of celebrating it on Dec. 25? From the pagans who had several festivals the time of the winter solstice which honored pagan gods. Where did the pagans at the time of the Roman empire get the idea? It came from the paganism of ancient Babylon, a paganism begun by Nimrod and his wife.

One example of this argument is “Are Christianity and Christmas Compatible?” by Adam Wiemers:

Why is Christmas celebrated on Dec. 25th? The answer is rather surprising.

Just a little research reveals that Christmas was actually adapted from a Roman celebration called Saturnalia. The Encyclopedia Romana* explains that “at the time of the winter solstice (December 25 in the Julian calendar), Saturnus, the god of seed and sowing, was honored with a festival.” The encyclopedia goes on to state that “the Saturnalia did continue to be celebrated as Brumalia (from “bruma,” winter solstice) down to the Christian era, when, by the middle of the fourth century AD, its rituals had become absorbed in the celebration of Christmas.”

Isn’t that alarming? The very ways that Christmas is celebrated are directly borrowed from a festival to a god of the Romans!

This is only partially true. It is certainly well known that the Bible does not tell us the exact date of Christ’s birth. As we saw in the previous section, Christians have been trying to pinpoint that date since the early centuries of the Church. Nevertheless, no one can say for certain which date is accurate.

The Romans, like many other cultures at the time of the winter solstice, had various festivals. Saturnalia, was a festival that honored Saturn, the god of agriculture, from Dec. 17-24. It was the most popular festival of the year and did involve merrymaking, gift-giving, relaxed morality, and temporary freedom for slaves, who were allowed to do and speak whatever they wanted. But not unlike many of our Christmas feasts today, by the early Fourth Century, the religious aspect of Saturnalia had faded, and the secular merrymaking had come to the fore. It is not likely, however, that Christians chose Dec. 25 to celebrate Christ’s birth on the basis of Saturnalia.

The earliest extant record of Christ’s birth being observed on December 25 is the Chronography in 354 A.D. This document was based upon a calendar that dated it to about 336 (Herman Wegman, Christian Worship in East and West, New York: Pueblo Publishing, 1985, 103).The Chronography was a document of the Church of Rome that listed the various martyrs’ feasts for the year. By the time that Chrysostom was Bishop of Constantinople (398-404), Christ’s birth was being observed on Dec. 25 throughout Christendom, though the Church in Armenia observed it on January 6.

But how did it happen that the early Christians began observing Christmas on December 25? Why this date? There are two theories about why December 25 was chosen.

(1) The first theory holds that after careful research, Julius (337-352), Bishop of Rome, determined that Christ had been born on December 25; or at least he determined that December 25 was the best authenticated date in the Tradition. John Chrystostom states this in one of his writings (John Chrysostom, Homil. Diem Natal., 2; PL, 49, 552ff.). Chrysostom claims that Julius, after he had been requested by Cyril of Jerusalem, had the official records of the Roman census examined and determined that December 25 was the correct date. As Weiser points out, however, there is no evidence to back this up; in fact, “it was expressly stated in Rome that the actual date of the Saviour’s birth was unknown and that different traditions prevailed in different parts of the world” (F. Weiser, Handbook of Christian Feasts and Customs – New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Company, 1958, 61.).

(2) The second theory states that the Church of Rome deliberately chose December 25 as the date of Christ’s birth to turn people away from a pagan feast that was observed at the same time. Since the time of the Roman emperor Elagabulus (218-222), the god Sol Invictus (he Unconquered Sun god), had been one of the chief deities worshiped by the Romans. When emperor Aurelian (270-275) came to power, he sought to restore the worship of the Sun god to prominence and make him the chief deity. In the last years of his reign, Sol was hailed as “The Lord of the Roman Empire.” Sol, along, with Jupiter, appeared on the coins Aurelian had minted. In 274, the emperor built a magnificent temple to Sun god, and established a new college of senators which he named “the priests of the Sun god.” Finally, December 25 was observed as “the birthday of the Sun god” (natalis solis invicti). Because the Sun god was identifed with Mithra, a popular Persian god that also was viewed as the Sun god, pagan celebrations occurred throughout the empire on Dec. 25 (see Clement A. Miles, Christmas, New York: Frederick A. Stokes Company, 1912, 23). The Church at Rome seems to have chosen this date to counteract this pagan feast of the sun god and turn people instead to the “Sun of Righteousness with healing in His wings” (Malachi 4:2; Luke 1:78). Or put another way, Julius chose December 25 so that the Son of God rather than the Sun god would be worshiped. Though there no direct evidence that proves that the Church of Rome deliberately chose December 25 so that Christ’s birth would replace “the birthday of the sun,” we do have sermons from fathers of the church who soon after this used this line of reasoning. For example, Augustine (354-430) in his sermon 202 and Leo the Great (440-461 — PL 54 Sources chrtiennes 22) gives this line of reasoning.

Therefore, the second theory seems to be the probable one. December 25 was chosen not because it had somehow been proven from extra-biblical sources that Christ was definitely born on December 25. Rather the date was chosen to counteract a very popula