globalwatchvision-Dec, 2011

A New World Order Watch Media Publication (www.thevisionreport.com) December 2011: Issue 18

The Vision Report Watch is a publication of Rema Marketing (www.remamarketing.com) and is published once per calendar month.

The Vision Report Watch is a private membership service. For any queries regarding this subscription service please contact us at

[email protected].

Why Are There Parallels Between Isis/Horus and Mary/Jesus

Does the Isis/Horus Mary/Jesus debate prove that Christianity's origins are

found in pagan mythology?

3 LETTER FROM THE EDITOR

An initial welcome from the chief editor of

the Vision Report Watch.

4 MYSTERY RELIGION AND CHRISTIANITY

Is there truth in the argument that

Christianity descended from pagan religion

because of the parallels between the biblical

stories and that found in mythology?

12 THE SABBATH DAY OF THE LORD DEBATE

Two thousand years after Jesus walked the

Earth, Christians are at war with each other

concerning – as strange as it may sound – a

day of the week mentioned in the Ten

Commandments. The issue boils down to:

"When is God's Sabbath?" In other words,

what is His holy day of rest?

21 SHOULD CHRISTIANS CELEBRATE

CHRISTMAS

Another major debate that again has divided

opinion within the Christian Faith. Where do

you stand?

25 THROWING OUT THE WATER

Rema Marketing adopts a highly

controversial model for research which some

members agree with and others disagree.

However we provide evidence of where we

can clearly throw out the water.

28 BOOK REVIEW OF THE MONTH

Despite the attacks on the validity of the

Christian Faith one can always rest assured

that there are great scholars who are

repelling these attacks with awesome work

on providing the evidence for the historical

Christ.

.

The Vision Report Watch is a publication of Rema Marketing (www.remamarketing.com) and is published every month.

The Vision Report Watch is a private membership service. For any queries regarding this subscription service please contact us at

[email protected].

A New World Order Watch Media Publication (www.thevisionreport.com) December 2011: Issue 18

Welcome to the Vision Report Watch This months edition is the end of year edition and as we approach Christmas it addresses some of the most controversial attacks on the Christian faith. Notably not only that Christianity has been significantly altered through the century through pagan influence but that the very origin of Christianity is rooted in Egyptology. How do we respond to such assertions in the age of intellectual enlightenment. Find out in this edition. Additionally we want to wish you a festive season. Please keep supporting us. Since taking over as editor 7 months ago we have made massive strides to make this report a consistent monthly edition that keeps you satisfied and hungry for more. Again we want to thank you for your support and hope that in 2012 we continue to serve you as best we can. Blessings to you and your family.

Enjoy the read.

Reece Woodstock

Chief Editor, Vision Report Watch

During the first half of the twentieth century, a number of liberal authors and professors claimed that the New Testament teaching about Jesus' death and resurrection, the New Birth, and the Christian practices of baptism and the Lord's Supper were derived from the pagan mystery religions. Of major concern in all this is the charge that the New Testament doctrine of salvation parallels themes commonly found in the mystery religions: a savior-god dies violently for those he will eventually deliver, after which that god is restored to life. Was the New Testament influenced by the pagan religions of the first century A.D.? These issues are so important — especially for Christian college students who often do not know where to look for answers — that there is considerable merit in addressing this question in a popular, nontechnical format. WHAT WERE THE MYSTERY RELIGIONS? Other than Judaism and Christianity, the mystery religions were the most influential religions in the early centuries after Christ. The reason these cults were called "mystery religions" is that they involved secret ceremonies known only to those initiated into the cult. The major benefit of these practices was thought to be some kind of salvation. The mystery religions were not, of course, the only manifestations of the religious spirit in the eastern Roman Empire. One could also find public cults not requiring an initiation ceremony into secret beliefs and practices. The Greek Olympian religion and its Roman counterpart are examples of this type of religion.

Each Mediterranean region produced its own mystery religion. Out of Greece came the cults of Demeter and Dionysus, as well as the Eleusinian and Orphic mystery religions, which developed later. Asia Minor gave birth to the cult of Cybele, the Great Mother, and her beloved, a shepherd named Attis. The cult of Isis and Osiris (later changed to Serapis) originated in Egypt, while Syria and Palestine saw the rise of the cult of Adonis. Finally, Persia (Iran) was a leading early locale for the cult of Mithras, which — due to its frequent use of the imagery of war — held a special appeal to Roman soldiers. The earlier Greek mystery religions were state religions in the sense that they attained the status of a public or civil cult and served a national or public function. The later non-Greek mysteries were personal, private, and individualistic. Basic Traits. One must avoid any suggestion that there was one common mystery religion. While a tendency toward eclecticism or synthesis developed after A.D. 300, each of the mystery cults was a separate and distinct religion during the century that saw the birth of the Christian church. Moreover, each mystery cult assumed different forms in different cultural settings and underwent significant changes, especially after A.D. 100. Nevertheless, the mystery religions exhibited five common traits. (1) Central to each mystery was its use of an annual vegetation cycle in which life is renewed each spring and dies each fall. Followers of the mystery cults found deep symbolic significance in the natural processes of growth, death, decay, and rebirth. (2) As noted above, each cult made important use of secret ceremonies or mysteries, often in connection with an initiation rite.

4

D MYSTERY RELIGION AND CHRISTIANITY

Each mystery religion also passed on a "secret" to the initiate that included information about the life of the cult's god or goddess and how humans might achieve unity with that deity. This "knowledge" was always a secret or esoteric knowledge, unattainable by any outside the circle of the cult. (3) Each mystery also centered around a myth in which the deity either returned to life after death or else triumphed over his enemies. Implicit in the myth was the theme of redemption from everything earthly and temporal. The secret meaning of the cult and its accompanying myth was expressed in a "sacramental drama" that appealed largely to the feelings and emotions of the initiates. This religious ecstasy was supposed to lead them to think they were experiencing the beginning of a new life. (4) The mysteries had little or no use for doctrine and correct belief. They were primarily concerned with the emotional life of their followers. The cults used many different means to affect the emotions and imaginations of initiates and hence bring about "union with the god": processions, fasting, a play, acts of purification, blazing lights, and esoteric liturgies. This lack of any emphasis on correct belief marked an important difference between the mysteries and Christianity. The Christian faith was exclusivistic in the sense that it recognized only one legitimate path to God and salvation, Jesus Christ. The mysteries were inclusivistic in the sense that nothing prevented a believer in one cult from following other mysteries. (5) The immediate goal of the initiates was a mystical experience that led them to feel they had achieved union with their god. Beyond this quest for mystical union were two more ultimate goals: some kind of redemption or salvation, and immortality. Evolution Before A.D. 100, the mystery religions were still largely confined to specific localities and were still a relatively novel phenomenon. After A.D. 100, they gradually began to attain a widespread popular influence throughout the Roman Empire. But they also underwent significant changes that often resulted from the various cults absorbing elements from each other. As devotees of the mysteries became increasingly eclectic in their beliefs and practices, new and odd combinations of the older mysteries began to emerge. And as the cults

continued to tone down the more objectionable features of their older practices, they began to attract greater numbers of followers.

RECONSTRUCTING THE MYSTERIES It is not until we come to the third century A.D. that we find sufficient source material (i.e., information about the mystery religions from the writings of the time) to permit a relatively complete reconstruction of their content. Far too many writers use this late source material (after A.D. 200) to form reconstructions of the third-century mystery experience and then uncritically reason back to what they think must have been the earlier nature of the cults. This practice is exceptionally bad scholarship and should not be allowed to stand without challenge. Information about a cult that comes several hundred years after the close of the New Testament canon must not be read back into what is presumed to be the status of the cult during the first century A.D. The crucial question is not what possible influence the mysteries may have had on segments of Christendom after A.D. 400, but what effect the emerging mysteries may have had on the New Testament in the first century.


5

THE CULT OF ISIS AND OSIRIS The cult of Isis originated in Egypt and went through two major stages. In its older Egyptian version, which was not a mystery religion, Isis was regarded as the goddess of heaven, earth, the sea, and the unseen world below. In this earlier stage, Isis had a husband named Osiris. The cult of Isis became a

mystery religion only after Ptolemy the First introduced major changes, sometime after 300 B.C. In the later stage, a new god named Serapis became Isis's consort. Ptolemy introduced these changes in order to synthesize Egyptian and Greek concerns in his kingdom, thus hastening the Hellenization of Egypt. From Egypt, the cult of Isis gradually made its way to Rome. While Rome was at first repelled by the cult, the religion finally entered the city during the reign of Caligula (A.D. 37-41). Its influence spread gradually during the next two centuries, and in some locales it became a major rival of Christianity. The cult's success in the Roman Empire seems to have resulted from its impressive ritual and the hope of immortality offered to its followers. The basic myth of the Isis cult concerned Osiris, her husband during the earlier Egyptian and nonmystery stage of the religion. According to the most common version of the myth, Osiris was murdered by his brother who then sank the coffin containing Osiris's body into the Nile river. Isis discovered the body and returned it to Egypt. But her brother- in-law once again gained access to the body, this time dismembering it into fourteen pieces which he scattered widely. Following a long search, Isis recovered each part of the body. It is at this point that the language used to describe what followed is crucial. Sometimes those telling the story are satisfied to say that Osiris came back to life, even though such language claims far more than the myth allows. Some writers go even further and refer to the alleged "resurrection" of Osiris. One liberal scholar illustrates how biased some writers are when they describe the pagan myth in Christian language: "The dead body of Osiris floated in the Nile and he returned to life, this being accomplished by a baptism in the waters of the Nile."

This biased and sloppy use of language suggests three misleading analogies between Osiris and Christ: (1) a savior god dies and (2) then experiences a resurrection accompanied by (3) water baptism. But the alleged similarities, as well as the language used to describe them, turn out to be fabrications of the modern scholar and are not part of the original myth. Comparisons between the resurrection of Jesus and the resuscitation of Osiris are greatly exaggerated. Not every version of the myth has Osiris returning to life; in some he simply becomes king of the underworld. Equally far-fetched are attempts to find an analogue of Christian baptism in the Osins myth. The fate of Osiris's coffin in the Nile is as relevant to baptism as the sinking of Atlantis. As previously noted, during its later mystery stage, the male deity of the Isis cult is no longer the dying Osiris but Serapis. Serapis is often portrayed as a sun god, and it is clear that he was not a dying god. Obviously then, neither could he be a rising god. Thus, it is worth remembering that the post-Ptolemaic mystery version of the Isis cult that was in circulation from about 300 B.C. through the early centuries of the Christian era had absolutely nothing that could resemble a dying and rising savior-god. THE CULT OF CYBELE AND ATTIS Cybele, also known as the Great Mother, was worshiped through much of the Hellenistic world. She undoubtedly began as a goddess of nature. Her early worship included orgiastic ceremonies in which her frenzied male worshipers were led to castrate themselves, following which they became "Galli" or eunuch-priests of the goddess. Cybele eventually came to be viewed as the Mother of all gods and the mistress of all life. Most of our information about the cult describes its practices during its later Roman period. But the details are slim and almost all the source material is relatively late, certainly datable long after the close of the New Testament canon. According to myth, Cybele loved a shepherd named Attis. Because Attis was unfaithful, she drove him insane. Overcome by madness, Attis castrated himself and died. This drove Cybele into great mourning, and it introduced death into the natural world. But then Cybele restored Attis to life, an event that also brought the world of nature back to life.


6

The presuppositions of the interpreter tend to determine the language used to describe what followed Attis's death. Many writers refer carelessly to the "resurrection of Attis." But surely this is an exaggeration. There is no mention of anything resembling a resurrection in the myth, which suggests that Cybele could only preserve Attis's dead body. Beyond this, there is mention of the body's hair continuing to grow, along with some movement of his little finger. In some versions of the myth, Attis's return to life took the form of his being changed into an evergreen tree. Since the basic idea underlying the myth was the annual vegetation cycle, any resemblance to the bodily resurrection of Christ is greatly exaggerated.

Eventually a public rehearsal of the Attis myth became an annual event in which worshipers shared in Attis's "immortality." Each spring the followers of Cybele would mourn for the dead Attis in acts of fasting and flagellation. It was only during the later Roman celebrations (after A.D. 300) of the spring festival that anything remotely connected with a "resurrection" appears. The pine tree symbolizing Attis was cut down and then carried corpse-like into the sanctuary. Later in the prolonged festival, the tree was buried while the initiates worked themselves into a frenzy that included gashing themselves with knives. The next night, the "grave" of the tree was opened and the "resurrection of Attis" was celebrated. But the language of these late sources is highly ambiguous. In truth, no clear- cut, unambiguous reference to the supposed "resurrection" of Attis appears, even in the very late literature from the fourth century after Christ.

THE TAUROBOLIUM The best-known rite of the cult of the Great Mother was the tauroboliurn. It is important to note, however, that this ritual was not part of the cult in its earlier stages. It entered the religion sometime after the middle of the second century A.D. During the ceremony, initiates stood or reclined in a pit as a bull was slaughtered on a platform above them. The initiate would then be bathed in the warm blood of the dying animal. It has been alleged that the taurobolium was a source for Christian language about being washed in the blood of the lamb (Rev. 7:14) or sprinkled with the blood of Jesus (1 Pet. 1:2). It has also been cited as the source for Paul's teaching in Romans 6:1-4, where he relates Christian baptism to the Christian's identification with Christ's death and resurrection. No notion of death and resurrection was ever part of the taurobolium, however. The best available evidence requires us to date the ritual about one hundred years after Paul wrote Romans 6:1-4. Not one existing text supports the claim that the taurobolium memorialized the death and "resurrection" of Attis. The pagan rite could not possibly have been the source for Paul's teaching in Romans 6. Only near the end of the fourth century A.D. did the ritual add the notion of rebirth. Several important scholars see a Christian influence at work in this later development. It is clear, then, that the chronological development of the rite makes it impossible for it to have influenced first-century Christianity. The New Testament teaching about the shedding of blood should be viewed in the context of its Old Testament background — the Passover and the temple sacrifice.


7


9

MITHRAISM Attempts to reconstruct the beliefs and practices of Mithraism face enormous challenges because of the scanty information that has survived Proponents of the cult explained the world in terms of two ultimate and opposing principles, one good (depicted as light) and the other evil (darkness). Human beings must choose which side they will fight for; they are trapped in the conflict between light and darkness. Mithra came to be regarded as the most powerful mediator who could help humans ward off attacks from demonic forces.

The major reason why no Mithraic influence on first-century Christianity is possible is the timing: it's all wrong! The flowering of Mithraism occurred after the close of the New Testament canon, much too late for it to have influenced anything that appears in the New Testament.9 Moreover, no monuments for the cult can be dated earlier than A.D. 90-100, and even this dating requires us to make some exceedingly generous assumptions. Chronological difficulties, then, make the possibility of a Mithraic influence on early Christianity extremely improbable. Certainly, there remains no credible evidence for such an influence. STRIKING PARALLELS? Enough has been said thus far to permit comment on one of the major faults of the above-mentioned liberal scholars. I refer to the frequency with which their writings evidence a careless, even sloppy use of language. One frequently encounters scholars who first use Christian terminology to describe pagan beliefs and practices, and then marvel at the striking

parallels they think they have discovered. One can go a long way toward "proving" early Christian dependence on the mysteries by describing some mystery belief or practice in Christian terminology. J. Godwin does this in his book, Mystery Religions in the Ancient World, which describes the criobolium (see footnote 6) as a "blood baptism" in which the initiate is "washed in the blood of the lamb."10 While uninformed readers might be stunned by this remarkable similarity to Christianity (see Rev. 7:14), knowledgeable readers will see such a claim as the reflection of a strong, negative bias against Christianity. Exaggerations and oversimplifications abound in this kind of literature. One encounters overblown claims about alleged likenesses between baptism and the Lord's Supper and similar "sacraments" in certain mystery cults. Attempts to find analogies between the resurrection of Christ and the alleged "resurrections" of the mystery deities involve massive amounts of oversimplification and inattention to detail. PAGAN RITUALS AND THE CHRISTIAN SACRAMENTS The mere fact that Christianity has a sacred meal and a washing of the body is supposed to prove that it borrowed these ceremonies from similar meals and washings in the pagan cults. By themselves, of course, such outward similarities prove nothing. After all, religious ceremonies can assume only a limited number of forms, and they will naturally relate to important or common aspects of human life. The more important question is the meaning of the pagan practices. Ceremonial washings that antedate the New Testament have a different meaning from New Testament baptism, while pagan washings after A.D. 100 come too late to influence the New Testament and, indeed, might themselves have been influenced by Christianity. Sacred meals in the pre-Christian Greek mysteries fail to prove anything since the chronology is all wrong. The Greek ceremonies that are supposed to have influenced first- century Christians had long since disappeared by the time we get to Jesus and Paul. Sacred meals in such post- Christian mysteries as Mithraism come too late.


8

Unlike the initiation rites of the mystery cults, Christian baptism looks back to what a real, historical person — Jesus Christ — did in history. Advocates of the mystery cults believed their "sacraments" had the power to give the individual the benefits of immortality in a mechanical or magical way, without his or her undergoing any moral or spiritual transformation. This certainly was not Paul's view, either of salvation or of the operation of the Christian sacraments. In contrast with pagan initiation ceremonies, Christian baptism is not a mechanical or magical ceremony. It is clear that the sources of Christian baptism are not to be found either in the taurobolium (which is post first- century anyway) or in the washings of the pagan mysteries. Its sources lie rather in the washings of purification found in the Old Testament and in the Jewish practice of baptizing proselytes, the latter being the most likely source for the baptistic practices of John the Baptist.

Of all the mystery cults, only Mithraism had anything that resembled the Lord's Supper. A piece of bread and a cup of water were placed before initiates while the priest of Mithra spoke some ceremonial words. But the late introduction of this ritual precludes its having any influence upon first-century Christianity. Claims that the Lord's Supper was derived from pagan sacred meals are grounded in exaggerations and oversimplifications. The supposed parallels and analogies break down completely. Any quest for the historical antecedents of the Lord's Supper is more likely to succeed if it stays closer to the Jewish foundations of the Christian faith than if it wanders off into the practices of the pagan cults. The Lord's Supper looked back to a real, historical person and to something He did in history. The occasion for

Jesus' introduction of the Christian Lord's Supper was the Jewish Passover feast. Attempts to find pagan sources for baptism and the Lord's Supper must be judged to fail. THE DEATH OF THE MYSTERY GODS AND THE DEATH OF JESUS The best way to evaluate the alleged dependence of early Christian beliefs about Christ's death and resurrection on the pagan myths of a dying and rising savior-god is to examine carefully the supposed parallels. The death of Jesus differs from the deaths of the pagan gods in at least six ways: (1) None of the so-called savior-gods died for someone else. The notion of the Son of God dying in place of His creatures is unique to Christianity. (2) Only Jesus died for sin. As Gunter Wagner observes, to none of the pagan gods "has the intention of helping men been attributed. The sort of death that they died is quite different (hunting accident, self-emasculation, etc.)." (3) Jesus died once and for all (Heb. 7:27; 9:25-28; 10:10-14). In contrast, the mystery gods were vegetation deities whose repeated deaths and resuscitations depict the annual cycle of nature. (4) Jesus' death was an actual event in history. The death of the mystery god appears in a mythical drama with no historical ties; its continued rehearsal celebrates the recurring death and rebirth of nature. The incontestable fact that the early church believed that its proclamation of Jesus' death and resurrection was grounded in an actual historical event makes absurd any attempt to derive this belief from the mythical, nonhistorical stories of the pagan cults. (5) Unlike the mystery gods, Jesus died voluntarily. Nothing like this appears even implicitly in the mysteries. (6) And finally, Jesus' death was not a defeat but a triumph. Christianity stands entirely apart from the pagan mysteries in that its report of Jesus' death is a message of triumph. Even as Jesus was experiencing the pain and humiliation of the cross, He was the victor. The New Testament's mood of exultation contrasts sharply with that of the mystery religions, whose followers wept and mourned for the terrible fate that overtook their gods.


9

THE RISEN CHRIST AND THE "RISING SAVIOR-GODS"

Which mystery gods actually experienced a resurrection from the dead? Certainly no early texts refer to any resurrection of Attis. Nor is the case for a resurrection of Osiris any stronger. One can speak of a "resurrection" in the stories of Osiris, Attis, and Adonis only in the most extended of senses. For example, after Isis gathered together the pieces of Osiris's dismembered body, Osiris became "Lord of the

Underworld." This is a poor substitute for a resurrection like that of Jesus Christ. And, no claim can be made that Mithras was a dying and rising god. The tide of scholarly opinion has turned dramatically against attempts to make early Christianity dependent on the so-called dying and rising gods of Hellenistic paganism. Any unbiased examination of the evidence shows that such claims must be rejected. CHRISTIAN REBIRTH AND CULTIC INITIATION RITES Liberal writings on the subject are full of sweeping generalizations to the effect that early Christianity borrowed its notion of rebirth from the pagan mysteries. But the evidence makes it clear that there was no pre-Christian doctrine of rebirth for the Christians to borrow. There are actually very few references to the notion of rebirth in the evidence that has survived, and even these are either very late or very ambiguous. They provide no help in settling the question of the source of the New Testament use of the concept. The claim that pre-Christian mysteries regarded their initiation rites as a kind of rebirth is unsupported by any evidence contemporary with such alleged practices. Instead, a view found in much later texts is read back into earlier rites, which are then interpreted quite speculatively as dramatic portrayals of the initiate's "new birth." The belief that pre-Christian mysteries used "rebirth" as a technical term lacks support from even one single text.

Most contemporary scholars maintain that the mystery use of the concept of rebirth (testified to only in evidence dated after A.D. 300) differs so significantly from its New Testament usage that any possibility of a close link is ruled out. The most that such scholars are willing to concede is the possibility that some Christians borrowed the metaphor or imagery from the common speech of the time and recast it to fit their distinctive theological beliefs. So even if the metaphor of rebirth was Hellenistic, its content within Christianity was unique. SEVEN ARGUMENTS AGAINST CHRISTIAN DEPENDENCE ON THE MYSTERIES We conclude by noting seven points that undermine liberal efforts to show that first-century Christianity borrowed essential beliefs and practices from the pagan mystery religions. (1) Arguments offered to "prove" a Christian dependence on the mysteries illustrate 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. (2) Many alleged similarities between Christianity and the mysteries are either greatly exaggerated or fabricated. Scholars often describe pagan rituals in language they borrow from Christianity. The careless use of language could lead one to speak of a "Last Supper" in Mithraism or a "baptism" in the cult of Isis. It is inexcusable nonsense to take the word "savior" with all of its New Testament connotations and apply it to Osiris or Attis as though they were savior-gods in any similar sense. (3) The chronology is all wrong. Almost all of our sources of information about the pagan religions alleged to have influenced early Christianity are dated very late. We frequently find writers quoting from documents written 300 years later than Paul in efforts to produce ideas that allegedly influenced Paul. We must reject the assumption that just because a cult had a certain belief or practice in the third or fourth century after Christ, it therefore had the same belief or practice in the first century.


10

(4) Paul would never have consciously borrowed from the pagan religions. All of our information about him makes it highly unlikely that he was in any sense influenced by pagan sources. He placed great emphasis on his early training in a strict form of Judaism (Phil. 3:5). He warned the Colossians against the very sort of influence that advocates of Christian syncretism have attributed to him, namely, letting their minds be captured by alien speculations (Col. 2:8). (5) Early Christianity was an exclusivist 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." 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. (6) Unlike the mysteries, the religion of Paul was grounded on events that actually happened in history. The mysticism of the mystery cults was essentially nonhistorical. Their myths were dramas, or pictures, of what the initiate went through, not real historical events, as Paul regarded Christ's death and resurrection to be. The Christian affirmation that the death and resurrection of Christ happened to a historical person at a particular time and place has absolutely no parallel in any pagan mystery religion. (7) What few parallels may still remain may reflect a Christian influence on the pagan systems. As Bruce Metzger has argued, "It must not be uncritically assumed that the Mysteries always influenced Christianity, for it is not only possible but probable that in certain cases, the influence moved in the opposite direction." It should not be surprising that leaders of cults that were being successfully challenged by Christianity should do something to counter the challenge. What better way to do this than by offering a pagan substitute? Pagan attempts to counter the growing influence of Christianity by imitating it are clearly apparent in measures instituted by Julian the Apostate, who was the Roman emperor from A.D. 361 to 363.


11

Two thousand years after Jesus walked the Earth, Christians are at war with each other concerning – as strange as it may sound – a day of the week mentioned in the Ten Commandments. The issue boils down to: "When is God's Sabbath?" In other words, what is His holy day of rest? Most Christians today think it's Sunday, when the majority of churches hold services. But others confidently say it's Saturday, calling Sunday worship "the most flagrant error of mainstream Christianity," believing Sunday-keepers are victims of clever deception. Some high-profile evangelical pastors such as California's Greg Laurie say it's simply "wrong to set Saturday apart as a special day for worship."

Today, some high-school sports teams refuse to play in state tournaments for the sole reason the events are held on Saturday – what they say is God's Sabbath. Conversely, the 1981 film "Chariots of Fire" was based on the true story of Eric Liddell, a Scottish sprinter and Christian missionary who disqualified himself from his best event at the 1924 Olympics because the race was on Sunday – the Sabbath in his view. Christians seem irreparably split, as this issue goes back to the beginning of time itself. IN THE BEGINNING ... There are seven days in a week, but historians have no consensus about the cycle's origin, since it has no basis in astronomy. The Bible, though, indicates God created the Earth and its life forms in six days, and then rested on the seventh. "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it." (Genesis 2:2-3) Biblically speaking, the first six days of the week had no special name. They were simply identified by ordinal numbers, such as the first, second and third day. But the seventh day was given a unique name. In Hebrew, it's "shabbat," meaning "rest." In English, the word is "Sabbath," and it's detailed in the Fourth Commandment. "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work ... . For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day." (Exodus 20:8-11) In many languages, the word used for the seventh day of the week – what we call Saturday – is actually the same word used for "Sabbath." In Greek, it is sabbaton; Italian, sabato; Spanish, sábado; Russian, subbota; Polish, sobota; and Hungarian, szómbat. Even the French "samedi" is from the Latin "Sambata dies," for "day of the Sabbath."

D HITLERS FASCINATION WITH BABYLON

D THE SABBATH DAY OF THE LORD DEBATE

12

Names of days in today's English come from ancient paganism, where they were originally associated with celestial objects and heathen gods. In the King James Version of the Bible, the word "Sabbath" appears 137 times. The word "Sunday" is absent, though its equivalent, the first day of the week, occurs eight times – nine if the "first day" of creation is counted. Some examples of the use of Sabbath include: "Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant." (Exodus 31:15-16) "But pray ye that your flight be not in winter, neither on the sabbath day." (Matthew 24:20) "Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath." (Mark 2:28) Most biblical scholars have little disagreement when asked what day the Bible specifically calls the Sabbath. "The seventh day, Saturday," says Richard Bauckham, professor of New Testament at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. "No other day is called the Sabbath in Old or New Testaments." In 2001, Jan Marcussen, a Seventh-Day Adventist from Thompsonville, Ill., was so sure there was no Bible verse declaring the first day to be the Sabbath, he offered up to $1 million for clear, Scriptural proof. "I didn't get even one response claiming the $1 million from any theologian, bishop, cardinal, pope or anyone else," Marcussen, author of "National Sunday Law," said "Why not? Because they can't. [Observing Sunday as the Sabbath] is the biggest hoax the world has ever seen." But while the Bible never calls the first day of the week a Sabbath, the vast majority of Christians today gather for worship then. Many think Sabbath-keeping was either abolished or moved to Sunday once Jesus rose from the grave. "There's not a simple answer," said Dr. Roger Felipe, a Baptist preacher from Marco Island, Fla., who is also director of programs for Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, part of Trinity International University. "From [today's] Christian point of view, the Sabbath is Sunday." There is little, if any, argument Jesus and His fellow Jews observed the Sabbath on the seventh day of the week, as the Bible states, "as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up to read." (Luke 4:16) But it's what took place after His death and resurrection that's key.



13

THE RISING OF THE SON

One reason many Christians provide for gathering on Sunday is the belief Jesus rose from the dead on the first day of the week. "It's a powerful symbol," says Felipe. An angel informs women that Jesus is not in the tomb, but has already risen. His sentiments echo a 1998 writing by Pope John Paul II in which the pontiff referred to the origins of Sunday-keeping. "In the weekly reckoning of time, Sunday recalls the day of Christ's Resurrection," the pope stated.

But the idea Jesus rose from the dead on a Sunday is not universal. The Bible is actually silent on the precise moment of resurrection. Jesus' followers came to His tomb before dawn on the first day of the week (Sunday), but they did not witness Him coming back to life. They merely found an empty tomb. "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen," is what an angel told the women. (Luke 24:5-6) "Christ was already gone!" exclaims John Pinkston, a retired Air Force navigator who is founder and president of the Congregation of God Seventh Day in Kennesaw, Ga. "So that shoots in the foot the belief that He was raised on Sunday." Pinkston is typical of many Sabbath-keepers, believing Jesus was neither killed on a Friday, nor raised on Sunday. He believes Jesus was actually put to death on a Wednesday, and remained in the grave 72 hours until Saturday evening. When the women came to the tomb early Sunday, they found it empty, indicating Jesus arose prior to their arrival. Even the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, a Sunday-keeper and chancellor of Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., agreed with that timetable, saying in 2001, "I personally believe He was crucified on Wednesday evening ... and rose after 6 p.m. Saturday evening." Most Christians today think Jesus died on a Friday and rose on Sunday. They point to Scriptures indicating a Sabbath day followed Jesus' execution. But Sabbath-keepers claim it was not the weekly Sabbath of Saturday approaching. Rather, they say it was an annual Sabbath, a "high" holy day in the Hebrew calendar known as the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which supposedly occurred on a Thursday the week Jesus was killed. The Gospel of John mentions that Sabbath was the annual type. "The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) ... ." (John 19:31) In other words, Sabbatarians say there was more than one day of rest that week. Their timeline has Jesus slain on Wednesday – the day before the "high day" annual Sabbath on Thursday. They believe Jesus was in the grave for a full three days and three nights, finally arising Saturday evening, the second Sabbath of the week. The mention of "three days and three nights" is important for many, as Jesus used that phrase to prove His divine identity:



14

"For as Jonah was in the belly of the great fish for three days and three nights, so I, the Son of Man, will be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights." (Matthew 12:40, New Living Translation) There's disagreement if that phrase means a full three days and three nights – 72 hours – or merely parts of three days and three nights, leading many to stick with the Friday-evening-to-Sunday-morning timeline. The last shall be first? Beyond the resurrection issue, there are several Bible references to "the first day of the week," none of which are clear on the Sabbath issue. "The New Testament evidence is not conclusive, and nowhere 'ordains' or instructs [Sunday-keeping]," said Margaret M. Mitchell, professor of New Testament and Early Christian Literature at the University of Chicago Divinity School. Mitchell says the "evidence is, historically speaking, tantalizing but not absolutely clear." She notes the apostle Paul, for instance, in 1 Corinthians 16:2, "calls on the Corinthians to treasure up on the first day of the week." "He does not explicitly say there whether the envisioned context is a gathering of the assembly, or if this refers to what people do in their own homes," Mitchell said. Another mention of the first day is in Acts 20:7, as Paul is shown breaking bread with fellow believers in ancient Troas, a peninsula in modern-day Turkey: "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them ... ." Mitchell said: "This text appears to show a particular Sunday eucharistic gathering, but it does not tell us if this replaced the Sabbath observance or stood alongside it, [i.e., people observed both]." Interestingly, while most Bible versions use the phrase "first day of the week" in Acts 20:7, a 1990 word-for-word translation of the same Scripture by Greek experts Robert K. Brown and Philip W. Comfort in the New Greek English Interlinear New Testament from Tyndale House Publishers, actually renders it as "one of the Sabbaths." Their version reads: "And on one of the Sabbaths having been assembled us to break bread, Paul was lecturing them ... ." If the Tyndale translation is accurate, it could heighten the Saturday-vs.-Sunday controversy, since this alleged evidence for Sunday worship may not have been a Sunday at all, but the usual Saturday Sabbath.



15

'THE LORD'S DAY' – OR IS THAT 'DAY OF THE LORD'? And then there's something called "the Lord's Day." Though mentioned just once in the Bible, many today assume it means Sunday. The Scripture, written by the apostle John on the Greek island of Patmos, says, "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet." (Revelation 1:10) Some Sabbatarians like Pinkston believe the term has no connection to the first day of the week. "It's not talking anything about Sunday," he said. "It's talking about the 'Day of the Lord' mentioned in the Old Testament. It's prophecy about when Christ comes back. The Book of Revelation reveals the events of the 'Day of the Lord.' It has nothing to do with a worship day." Others think it is indeed a worship day, but not Sunday. They suggest "the Lord's Day" is actually a Saturday Sabbath, noting Jesus called himself "Lord of the Sabbath" (Mark 2:28) and that God referred to the Sabbath as "my holy day." (Isaiah 58:13) Thus, according to this reasoning, if any day of the week were really "the Lord's Day," it's the seventh-day Sabbath, not Sunday. However, Prof. Bauckham in Scotland believes there's good evidence from early Christian sources the phrase does indeed refer to Sunday. "John probably means that his visionary experience happened during the time when other Christians were gathered for worship," he said. "The other interpretation [equating it with the 'Day of the Lord'] doesn't really make sense because the earlier parts of the vision are not placed temporally at the end of history. That is only approached over several chapters [into Revelation]." The Encyclopedia Britannica equates Sunday with "the Lord's Day" in Christianity, stating, "The practice of Christians gathering together for worship on Sunday dates back to apostolic times, but details of the actual development of the custom are not clear." The New Testament, penned within the first century, never specifically mentions a Sabbath change. "From a logical point of view," says Pinkston, "if the New Testament had intended for us to start worshipping on the first day of the week, then we'd find ample evidence for it. Yet, it's not in there." One example Sabbatarians point to is when Paul is shown preaching to both Jews and Gentiles (non-Hebrews) on a Sabbath, and not Sunday. He's then asked to preach again on the following Sabbath. "And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath. ... And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God." (Acts 13:42-44) The argument is, if there were some kind of worship on the first day of the week, then Paul would have just told the people – especially those with no connection to Jewish customs – to simply come back tomorrow (Sunday) to learn more, rather than wait an entire week for the next Sabbath to arrive.



16

MAN OF THE SABBATH

A well-known expert on the Sabbath is Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, a retired theology professor at Andrews University in Michigan. Bacchiocchi earned his doctorate in Church History at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome and was awarded a gold medal by Pope Paul VI for his summa cum laude class work and dissertation, "From Sabbath to Sunday: A Historical Investigation of the Rise of Sunday Observance in Early Christianity." Bacchiocchi, a Seventh-Day Adventist, believes there's no Scriptural mandate to change or eliminate Sabbath-keeping, and he singles out the Catholic Church for its role in changing the day. "The Church of the capital of the empire, whose authority was already felt far and wide in the second century, appears to be the most likely birthplace of Sunday observance," he writes.

In the 1876 book, "The Faith of Our Fathers," James Cardinal Gibbons, the Catholic archbishop of Baltimore, agreed the shift to Sunday was not based on the Bible, but was solely the work of the Catholic Church. "You may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify," Gibbons wrote. Bacchiocchi also stated: "Anti-Judaism caused the abandonment of the Sabbath, and pagan sun worship influenced the adoption of Sunday." He says evidence of anti-Judaism is found in the writings of Christian leaders such as Ignatius, Barnabas and Justin in the second century. He notes these three "witnessed and participated in the process of separation from Judaism which led the majority of the Christians to abandon the Sabbath and adopt Sunday as the new day of worship." Bacchiocchi also explains the influence of pagan sun worship provides a "plausible explanation for the Christian choice of Sunday" over the day of Saturn. Its effect wasn't just limited to Sunday. It apparently led to the placement of Jesus' birth in late December. "The adoption of the 25th of December for the celebration of Christmas is perhaps the most explicit example of sun worship's influence on the Christian liturgical calendar," Bacchiocchi writes. "It is a known fact that the pagan feast of the Dies Natalis Solis Invicti – the birthday of the Invincible Sun, was held on that date." One of the Roman names for this "Invincible Sun" god in the days of the apostles was Mithra. There are striking similarities between the ancient worship of Mithra and today's Christianity, leading some to think early Christians adopted Sunday worship from heathen customs. For instance, Mithraism's sacred day of Sunday was said to be called "the Lord's Day." Donald Morse, a retired professor at Temple University, wrote a 1999 essay comparing the tenets of Mithraism to modern Christianity, explaining Mithra was worshipped on Sunday; was born of a virgin known as the "mother of God" on Dec. 25; was part of a holy trinity; and had a "Last Supper" with his 12 followers before his death and resurrection at Easter time near the spring equinox.



17

Mithraists were also taught they had immortal souls that went to a celestial heaven or an infernal hell at death. "All of these religions intermingled in those days," stated Morse, who is Jewish, There's no way to know who stole from whom." On the change from Sabbath to Sunday, Morse suggested early Christian leaders including Paul felt "the best way to convert pagans was to not have them change too much. Just accept their [pagan] holidays, as long as they accepted Jesus as Messiah. They didn't really have to do much more than that." THERE'S NO PLACE LIKE ROME As Christianity spread through the pagan Roman Empire, it was finally given official toleration in the year 312 by Emperor Constantine, who purportedly had a vision that prompted his soldiers to fight under a "symbol of Christ," leading to a key military victory. The emperor then restored confiscated church property and even offered public funds to churches in need. Sunday observance received a historic boost when Constantine – himself a pagan who is said to have adopted Christianity at least nominally – established Sunday as the first day of the week in the Roman calendar and issued a mandatory order prohibiting work on that day, in honor of the sun god. On March 7, 321, he decreed, "On the venerable Day of the Sun, let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed." Farmers were given an exception. "The importance of the actions of Constantine cannot be overstated," says author Richard Rives in "Too Long in the Sun." "During his reign, pagan sun worship was blended with the worship of the Creator, and officially entitled 'Christianity.'" Before the end of the 4th century, Sunday observance prevailed over Saturday. At the Council of Laodicea in 363, the Church of Rome – today known as the Roman Catholic Church – declared: "Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honoring the Lord's Day [Sunday]; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ." In 380, Emperor Theodosius made Sunday-keeping Catholic Christianity the official religion of the empire, outlawing all other faiths: We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since in our judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that the shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics. While some went along with the decrees, others apparently did not. A letter from Ambrose, the bishop of Milan, reveals differences in Sabbath practices in his own city from those in Rome. It led to the well-known proverb, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." Once Sunday had the imperial power of the Roman Catholic government behind it, Saturday Sabbath-keepers became less visible, though some Sabbatarian websites have documented mentions of seventh-day observers through the centuries.



17

For example, the Catholic Church persecuted Sabbath-keepers in the 15th century. At the Catholic Provincial Council of Bergen, Norway, in 1435, it was said: We are informed that some people in different districts of the kingdom, have adopted and observed Saturday-keeping. It is severely forbidden – in holy church canon – [for] one and all to observe days excepting those which the holy pope, archbishop, or the bishops command. Saturday-keeping must under no circumstances be permitted hereafter further that the church canon commands. Therefore we counsel all the friends of God throughout all Norway who want to be obedient towards the holy church to let this evil of Saturday-keeping alone; and the rest we forbid under penalty of severe church punishment to keep Saturday holy. The Catholic Encyclopaedia even refers to Sabbath-keeping as "the superstitious observance of Saturday," noting it was forbidden by that council. COMING TO AMERICA As Christianity headed west, the earliest settlers to America included both Sunday-keepers – such as the Puritans who landed at Plymouth, Mass., in 1620 – and Sabbath-observers like the Seventh Day Baptists, whose first church was founded in Newport, R.I., in 1671. When the Puritan Christians used the word Sabbath, they would mean Sunday – "the Lord's Day" – and passed rules enforcing its observance from sunset Saturday to sunset Sunday. Connecticut's so-called Blue Laws of the 1650s had strict codes of conduct said to include: •No one shall run on the Sabbath day, or walk in his garden or elsewhere, except reverently to and from meeting. •No one shall travel, cook victuals, make beds, sweep house, cut hair, or shave, on the Sabbath day. •No one shall read Common-Prayer, keep Christmas or saints-days, make minced pies, dance, play cards, or play on any instrument of music, except the drum, trumpet, and the Jews-harp. •Adultery shall be punished by death. Instructions for colonists in New Haven, Conn., drafted in 1655 and published in London in 1656 became known as blue laws. In her 1909 book, "The Sabbath in Puritan New England," historian Alice Morse Earle documented "lists of arrests and fines for walking and travelling unnecessarily on the Sabbath," regarded here from Saturday evening to Sunday evening: A Maine man who was rebuked and fined for "unseemly walking" on the Lord's Day protested that he ran to save a man from drowning. The Court made him pay his fine, but ordered that the money should be returned to him when he could prove by witnesses that he had been on that errand of mercy and duty. As late as the year 1831, in Lebanon, Conn., a lady journeying to her father's home was arrested within sight of her father's house for unnecessary travelling on the Sabbath; and a long and fiercely contested lawsuit was the result, and damages were finally given for false imprisonment..



17

Christians observing the Sabbath on Saturday also spread throughout America, but in fewer numbers than Sunday-keepers. The teachings of the Seventh Day Baptists are said to be instrumental in the founding of the Seventh-day Adventist Church – which claims a membership today of 15 million – and the Church of God (Seventh Day) – which has more than 200 congregations in the U.S. and Canada and a worldwide fellowship of more than 300,000. Other Christians promoting Saturday rest include many offshoots of the Worldwide Church of God, such as the United Church of God, Living Church of God, Church of God International, Philadelphia Church of God , Christian Biblical Church of God and Intercontinental Church of God. Messianic Jews, including Dallas-based Zola Levitt Ministries, are also seventh-day proponents. Some Sabbatarians, such as Richard Ames of the Living Church of God, produce TV shows like "Tomorrow's World," asking, "Which day is the Christian Sabbath?" On one program, Ames points to Luke 4:16 in the Bible and says, "It was Jesus' regular custom to worship on the Sabbath, and since that time, and centuries before, the Jewish community has very carefully documented their observance of the seventh-day Sabbath, Saturday. In other words, history demonstrates that time has not been lost, that the seven-day cycle has been accurately recorded to this day." In another episode, Ames' colleague, Roderick C. Meredith, calls Sunday observance "the most flagrant error of mainstream Christianity" and "the most obvious deception of all."

"Do you realize that this deception is blinding millions of people from knowing God?" asks Meredith. Despite such rhetoric, many Catholic and Protestant Sunday-keepers reject Sabbath-keeping on Saturday. Greg Laurie, a senior pastor of Harvest Christian Fellowship in Riverside, Calif., one of the eight largest Protestant churches in America, maintains it's wrong for Christians to observe Saturday, claiming Jesus and the apostles never taught anyone to keep the Sabbath. He says it's the only one of the Ten Commandments not

specifically repeated in the New Testament. "Of all the New Testament lists of sins, 'breaking the Sabbath' is never mentioned," Laurie said. "That is because it was given to the Jews, not the non-Jews." Back in Florida, Sunday-keeper Roger Felipe thinks God is not overly concerned with the Sabbath issue. "Paul is very clear that we Christians don't use [one particular day] as a determining factor if someone is right with God," Felipe said. At the same time, though, the minister supports the idea of resting one day each week to stay on track with God. "Humanity has forsaken the importance of Sabbath rest," he said. "God desires us to be renewed spiritually. We should observe a day ... to be consecrated and to be devoted to God, to be renewed and refreshed. In terms of affecting the human quality of life, it would do us very well to observe a Sabbath rest."



17

SHOULD CHRISTIANS CELEBRATE CHRISTMAS

Should Christians celebrate Christmas? A number of unorthodox new religions which profess to follow Christ insist that Christmas is a pagan festival to be shunned by all true Christians. Probably the most notable of these religions is the Jehovah's Witnesses, who publish stinging attacks on the celebration of Christmas year after year. Other religions that take the same position include the World Wide Church of God (led by Herbert W. Armstrong) and the Assemblies of Yahweh. However, these unorthodox religious groups are not alone in their condemnation of this most popular of religious holidays. Many evangelical Christians also believe that Christmas is a pagan celebration dressed up in "Christian clothes." While many Christians mark Christmas as a special day to worship Christ and give thanks for His entrance into the world, they reject anything to do with Santa Claus, Christmas trees, exchanging gifts, and the like. Are there biblical grounds for rejecting all or part of Christmas? What should be the attitude of Christians in this matter? That is the question before us. The answer given here is that while certain elements of Christmas tradition are essentially pagan and should not be indulged at that time of year), Christmas itself and many of the traditions associated with it may be celebrated by Christians with a clear conscience. Those who are inclined to reject out of hand such a position might be interested to know that at one time this writer would have agreed with them. A closer examination of the issues involved, however, leads to a different conclusion.

SHOULD CHRISTIANS CELEBRATE JESUS' BIRTHDAY The most basic and common argument brought against Christmas is that it is not found in the Bible. Many Christians, as well as groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses, feel that because Christmas is not mentioned in scripture, it is therefore not to be observed. In fact, the Witnesses argue that since the only people in the Bible who celebrated their own birthdays were Pharoah (Gen. 40:20-22) and Herod (Matt. 14:6-10), God takes a dim view of celebrating birthdays in general. Therefore, they feel, God would hardly approve of celebrating Jesus' birthday. In answer to these arguments, a few things need to be said. First of all, the fact is that the Bible says nothing against the practice of celebrating birthdays. What was bad in the cases of Pharoah and Herod was not that they celebrated their birthdays, but that they did evil things on their birthdays (Pharoah killed his chief baker, and Herod killed John the Baptist). Second, what the Bible does not forbid, either explicitly or by implication from some moral principle, is permissible to the Christian, as long as it is edifying (Rom. 13:10; 14:1-23; 1 Cor. 6:12; 10:23; Col. 2:20-23; etc.). Therefore, since the Bible does not forbid birthdays, and they do not violate any biblical principle, there is no biblical basis for rejecting birthdays. For the same reason, there is no biblical reason to reject entirely the idea of celebrating Jesus' birthday. SHOULD CHRISTIANS CELEBRATE DECEMBER 25 Another common objection to Christmas relates to observing December 25 as the birthday of Christ. It is frequently urged that Christ could not have been born in December (usually because the shepherds would supposedly not have had their flocks in the fields at night in that month), so that December 25 could not have been his birthday. It is also pointed out that December 25 was the date of a pagan festival in the Roman Empire in the fourth century, when Christmas began to be widely celebrated on that day. It is true that there seems to be no evidence for December 25 as the actual birthday of Christ. On the other hand, it has been shown that such a date is not impossible, as is so commonly supposed.

D THE ROYAL BAVARIAN ILLUMINATI

D SHOULD CHRISTIANS CELEBRATE CHRISTMAS

22

Nevertheless, it may be granted that it is highly improbable that Christ was actually born on December 25. Does this fact invalidate Christmas? No. It is not essential to the celebration of someone's birth that it be commemorated on the same date as his birth. Americans commemorate Washington's and Lincoln's birthday on the third Monday of February, even though Washington's was February 22. If it were to become certain that Christ was actually born on say, April 30, should we then celebrate Christmas on that day? While there would be nothing wrong with such a change, it would not be necessary. The intent or purpose is what matters, not the actual date.

But what of the fact that December 25 was the date of a pagan festival? Does this not prove that Christmas is pagan? No, it does not. Instead, it proves that Christmas was established as a rival celebration to the pagan festival. That is, what Christians did was to say, "Rather than celebrate in immorality the birth of Mithra, a false god who was never really born and who cannot save you, let us celebrate in joyful righteousness the birth of Jesus, the true God incarnate who is the Savior of the world." Sometimes it is urged that to take a pagan festival and try to "Christianize" it is folly. However, God Himself did exactly that in the Old Testament. Historical evidence shows conclusively that some of the feasts given to Israel by God through Moses were originally pagan agricultural festivals, which were filled with idolatrous imagery and practices.2 What God did, in effect, was to establish feasts which would replace the pagan festivals without

adopting any of the idolatry or immorality associated with them. It would appear, then, that in principle there is nothing wrong with doing so in the case of Christmas. SHOULD CHRISTIANS CELEBRATE SANTA CLAUS Perhaps the thing that bothers Christians about Christmas more than anything else is the Santa Claus tradition. Objections to this tradition include the following (1) Santa Claus is a mythical figure endowed with godlike attributes, including omniscience and omnipotence; (2) when children learn that Santa Claus is not real, they lose faith in their parents' word and in supernatural beings; (3) Santa Claus distracts children from Christ; (4) the Santa Claus story teaches children to be materialistic. In the face of such weighty objections, can anything good be said about Santa Claus? Before examining each of these objections, let it be noted that Christmas can be celebrated without Santa Claus. Take Santa out of Christmas and Christmas remains intact. Take Christ out of Christmas, however, and all that remains is a pagan festival. Whatever our individual differences however best to handle Santa Claus with our children may be, as Christians we should be able to agree on this much.

1.There is no doubt that Santa Claus in its present form is a fairy tale or myth. However, there really was a Santa Claus. The name "Santa Claus" is an Anglicized form of the Dutch Sinter Klaas, which in turn meant "Saint Nicholas." Nicholas was a Christian bishop in the fourth century about whom we know little for sure. He apparently attended the



23

Council of Nicea in A.D. 325, and a very strong tradition suggests that he did show unusual kindness toward children. While the red-suited old man in a sled pulled by flying reindeer is a myth, the story of a children-loving old man who brought them gifts probably is not -- and in many countries, that is all there is to "Santa Claus." Telling children that Santa can see them at all times and that he knows if they have been bad or good, etc., is wrong. Parents should not tell their children the Santa Claus story as if it were literal truth. However, children under seven or eight years of age can play "let's pretend" and derive just as much fun from it as if they thought it was real. Indeed, at that age they are learning the difference between make-believe and reality. Much younger children will be fascinated by presents that are discovered Christmas morning under the tree that they are told are from "Santa," but they will not draw any conclusions about the reality of Santa Claus from those discoveries. 1. When children learn that Santa Claus is not real, this will upset them only if they have been told by their parents that he really exists and does all that he is purported to do. Therefore, children should be told that Santa is make-believe as soon as they are old enough to ask questions about reality. Rather than a stumbling block to belief in the supernatural, Santa can be a stepping stone. Tell your children that while Santa Claus is make-believe, God and Jesus are not. Tell them that while Santa can only bring things that parents can buy or make, Jesus can give them things no one else can -- a friend who is always with them, forgiveness of the bad things they do, life in a wonderful place with God forever, etc. 2. Follow the suggestions above, and Santa Claus will not be a distraction from Christ. Tell your children that the reason "Santa" gives gifts is because God gave us the wonderful gift of Jesus. 3..On the contrary, the Santa Claus story is best told when it is used to encourage children to be selfless and giving. For an example of how to teach your inquiring child about Santa Claus, see the book, Santa Are You for Real? by Harold Myra (Thomas Nelson, 1977).

SHOULD CHRISTIANS CELEBRATE CHRISTMAS TREES One of the few elements of the traditional celebration of Christmas, which those opposed to it claim is spoken of in Scripture, is the Christmas tree. Specifically, it is thought that in Jeremiah 10:2-4 God explicitly condemned Christmas trees:

Thus says the LORD... "For the customs of the people are delusion, Because it is wood cut from the forest, The work of the hands of a craftsman with a cutting tool. They decorate it with silver and with gold, They fasten it with nails and with hammers So that it will not totter." There certainly is a resemblance between the thing described in Jeremiah 10 and the Christmas tree. Resemblance, however, does not equal identity. What Jeremiah described was an idol -- a representation of a false god -- as the next verse shows (Jer. 10:5): "Like a scarecrow in a field are they, And they cannot speak; They must be carried, Because they cannot walk! Do not fear them, For they can do no harm, Neither can they do any good." The parallel passage in Isaiah 40:18-20 makes it clear that the sort of thing Jeremiah 10 has in mind is an actual objection of worship:



23

To whom then will you liken God? Or what likeness will you compare with Him? As for the idol, a craftsman cast it, A goldsmith plates it with gold, And a silversmith fashions chains of silver. He who is too impoverished for such an offering Selects a tree that does not rot. He seeks out for himself a skilled craftsman To prepare an idol that will not totter. Thus, the resemblance is merely superficial. The Christmas tree does not originate from pagan worship of trees (which was practiced), but from two explicitly Christian symbols in medieval western Germany. The Encyclopaedia Britannica explains as follows: The modern Christmas tree, though originated in western Germany. The main prop of a popular medieval play about Adam and Eve was a fire tree hung with apples (Paradise tree) representing the Garden of Eden. The Germans set up a "Paradise tree" in their homes on December 24, the religious feast day of Adam and Eve. They hung wafers on it (symbolizing the host, the Christian sign of redemption); the hosts eventually became cookies of various shapes. Candles, too, were often added as a symbol of Christ. In the same room, during the Christmas season, was the Christmas pyramid, a triangular construction of wood, with shelves to hold Christmas figurines, decorated with evergreens, candles, and a star. By the 16th century, the Christmas pyramid and Paradise tree had merged, becoming the Christmas tree. Once again, there is nothing essential about the Christmas tree to the celebration of Christmas. Like the modern Santa Claus myth, it is a relatively recent tradition; people celebrated Christmas for centuries without the tree and without the semi-divine resident of the North Pole. What is essential to Christmas is Christ. Yet that does not mean that we must throw Santa and the tree out altogether. In this matter we have Christian liberty to adopt these traditions and use them to teach our children about Christ, or to celebrate Christ's birth without them. For that matter, there is no compulsion to celebrate His birthday at all, since it is not commanded of us in Scripture. Nevertheless, it would be strange indeed if someone saved by the Son of God would not rejoice in thinking of the day that His incarnation was first manifested to the world on that holy night.



23

Many of you will have heard the terms “don't throw the baby out with the bath water” This is a motto that Rema Marketing has abided by over the last several years. Much of our research isn't just based on Christian material but also material from secular writers and other religions. Where we find truth we abstract it and where we find that the truth is embedded in falsehood we eliminate the falsehood. We don't abandon the element of truth because of the falsehood. In previous editions of the Vision Report Watch we have included material from David Icke a secular scholar on global conspiracies. He has produced some great material regarding his views on a coming one world government, he also has some border line views regarding the theory of a reptilian race already present amongst us. But where we have to throw his views out (throwing out the water) is when it comes to his views on Christianity. David Icke gives believes that historically a few have

controlled the many through religion. For those who are Christian, you are actually according to Icke worshipping Horus along with all of the other Babylonian theological figures. Additionally, Icke traces theology through

modern times via symbolism and secret societies. One of his works goes explains how the Bible was part of a process called "Pious Fraud." Pious Fraud by his definition is: "Pious fraud was a common technique employed by early Christian writers to make a point. Their intention was to convert anyone and everyone by any means available."

David Icke has publicized an article called "The Origins of Christianity and the Quest for the Historical Jesus Christ" by Acharya S/D.M. Murdock who along with the Zeitgesit movement have been prominent in their attack on the authenticity of the historical Christ. We address some of the key points in this article which Icke uses to question the origin of Christianity. THAT JESUS NEVER EXISTED The first quote I would like to analyze is as follows: the most enduring and profound controversy in this subject is whether or not a person named Jesus Christ ever really existed. First of all, there is no controversy whatsoever among legitimate scholars on whether the man Jesus of Nazareth ever lived. We have it on good authority from a number of non-Christian historians of the first and early second centuries, including Tacitus, Pliny, Josephus and many others, that Jesus was a very real person. Tacitus includes the information that "Christus" (as he calls him) was put to death by Pontius Pilate. Even the Jewish writers of the Talmud do not deny the reality of Jesus--and they would certainly know if he were a real person.

D THROWING OUT THE WATER

8


8

In the Babylonian Talmud (2nd century AD) the writer confirms that "Yeshu" (his Hebrew name) was hanged on the eve of the Passover. We know for a fact from non-Christian authorities that there were many thousands of believers in Jesus Christ, who accepted the literal fact of his life, his miracles and his resurrection within the first century. It is beyond reason to believe that these people were completely bamboozled into believing in a mythical man who did not even exist, when there were literally thousands of eye-witnesses living in the area at that time. TAKING OTHERS OUT OF CONTEXT Below is the second quote taken from this article: This controversy has existed from the very beginning, and the writings of the "Church Fathers" themselves reveal that they were constantly forced by the pagan intelligentsia to defend what the non-Christians and other Christians ("heretics") alike saw as a preposterous and fabricated yarn with absolutely no evidence of it ever having taken place in history. As Rev. Robert Taylor says, "And from the apostolic age downwards, in a never interrupted succession, but never so strongly and emphatically as in the most primitive times, was the existence of Christ as a man most strenuously denied." Emperor Julian, who, coming after the reign of the fanatical and murderous "good Christian" Constantine, returned rights to pagan worshippers, stated, "If anyone should wish to know the truth with respect to you Christians, he will find your impiety to be made up partly of the Jewish audacity, and partly of the indifference and confusion of the Gentiles, and that you have put together not the best, but the worst characteristics of them both." According to these learned dissenters, the New Testament could rightly be called, "Gospel Fictions." This is a blatant example of use of logical fallacies to make arguments. For example, Acharya S makes a straw man argument by quoting Mr. Taylor out of context. What he (Mr. Taylor) is saying is that the early church argued over the nature of Jesus. Some said that he was entirely human and entirely divine. Some said he was entirely divine (the gnostics, for example). Still others said that he was entirely human.

What no one ever argued EVER was whether or not he really existed. The author is trying to make someone say something which he never said. Taylor is not saying that people have argued over whether Jesus was real. Such manipulative abuse of a person's statement to prove a point is inexcusable. Second, she takes a quote from Julian "The Apostate" to prove that he said Jesus never existed. The problem with this is that Julian does not say in this quote that Jesus did not exist. I am confident that Julian believed that Jesus Christ was a real person. If you look carefully at her argument that it was commonly believed back then that Jesus did not live, you will see that she cannot give a single example. THE GOSPELS ARE WORKS OF FICTION Let us analyze a third quote from this article: A century ago, mythicist Albert Churchward said, "The canonical gospels can be shown to be a collection of sayings from the Egyptian Mythos and Eschatology." In Forgery in Christianity, Joseph Wheless states, "The gospels are all priestly forgeries over a century after their pretended dates. First of all, simply telling us that "mythist" Albert Churchward said that the gospels are a collection of myths is not evidence that this is so. Acharya S. and many of the articles by David Icke try to prove something is fact by quoting a number of people who say it is so. This is not evidence. A quote from an eminent scholar in the field may carry some weight, but who is Albert Churchward? Now, the claim here is that the gospels were all written more than a century after their "pretended dates." In other words, this person has the audacity to claim that the gospels were all written after AD 150. What she refuses to notice is that there is not a single serious scholar who would support this opinion. The reason is that the evidence is absolutely overwhelming that it is not true. For example, one papyrus fragment of the book of John is known as the Rylands Papyrus. This fragment of John has been dated to around AD 125. Other fragments of all four gospels have been found from a period before Acharya claims these books were written. Actually, this is not even the strongest evidence that these books were written in the first century. The fact is that a number of church fathers, including


9


8

Polycarp, Ignatius, Clement of Rome, the writer of the Didache and others quote extensively from all four gospels, as well as almost all of the New Testament books, all before AD 120; some even wrote before AD 100. Acharya tries to create the impression that the apocryphal gospels (such as the pious fraud Gospel of Thomas) are of about equal worth to the canonical gospels. This is not just an unsupported opinion. It is an outright lie. None of the apocryphal gospels is ever quoted by the very early church fathers. This is mainly because they were not even written yet. It is settled fact that all four gospels were written before AD 90. Almost certainly they were written at least twenty years before that, with the possible exception of John. This argument does not hold water at all. Yet, the author speaks as if she had authority. DOCUMENT FORGERY Forgery during the first centuries of the Church's existence was admittedly rampant, so common in fact that a new phrase was coined to describe it: "pious fraud." Of the four claims, this is the only one which is at least in part true. It is true that by the middle of the second century AD a number of "pious fraud" apocryphal letters came to be written and to circulate. Most or more likely all of them were produced by members of heretical sects. Most commonly, they were produced by Gnostic groups. Such heretical teachers promoted ideas that Jesus was a spiritual but not a human person. They believed in special, hidden knowledge which was only available to the initiates of their individual groups. Gnosticism was even becoming a problem in the first century, as can be seen by the book of first John which is clearly written, at least in part, to oppose gnostic influence "(him) which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched" (1 Jn 1:1). The claim of Acharya S. and of David Icke is that the canonical gospels of Mark, Luke, John and Matthew are also pious frauds. What they lack is evidence to support this contention. We know for a fact that the church accepted these letters as being inspired writings in the first century. We know that the very

early church believed these were factual accounts of real events at a time when those who were eyewitnesses to the events were still alive. This is absolutely not the case with the Gospel of Thomas or any of the dozens of other apocryphal gospels. None of the church fathers in the first two centuries ever quoted from any of these pious frauds. If you struggle with this claim, the solution is simple. Read these "gospels" for yourself. Study what honest scholars say about these books. Compare the evidence to the four gospels. You will find that the claim that the book of Matthew is a pious fraud does not stand up to the facts. In fact, the only way to support this claim is to either avoid looking at the evidence or to purposefully cover up the truth in order to deceive the reader. In closing there will always be controversy about the “don't throw the baby out with the bath water approach.” There will be some Christians who are so intolerant of attacks on Christianity that they would totally shut out anything produced by the likes of Icke and others who also believe in a one world government conspiracy but are secular researchers rather than men of faith. Whilst we will continue to seek truth where it is found the main thrust of this section is that when it comes to the foundations of the Christian faith, this is non negotiable and as apologists we will stand and fight for the historical validity of the Christian faith when required.


9

Dr. Gary R. Habermas is Distinguished Research Professor and chair of the Department of Philosophy and Theology at Liberty University. He also teaches in the Ph.D. program in theology and apologetics at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary. He earned the Ph.D. at Michigan State University and the M.A. from the University of Detroit. He has authored, coauthored, or edited thirty-six books and contributed more than sixty chapters or articles to other books. He has also written well over one hundred articles and reviews for journals and other publications. While his chief areas of research (and the topic of eighteen of his books) are issues related to Jesus' resurrection, he has also published frequently on the afterlife as well as the subjects of suffering and religious doubt. professor, having taught courses at some fifteen different graduate schools and seminaries in the United States and abroad. He and his wife, Eileen, have seven children and ten grandchildren, all of whom live in Lynchburg, Virginia. Habermas provides evidence that a man named Jesus really did live in Palestine in the first century, using the ordinary canons of historical research (artifactual evidence, inscriptional evidence, and literary evidence). Because Habermas concludes that Jesus was a real person in history, many atheists will be offended by this book (as evidenced by the negative reviews). However, the evidence that Jesus lived is actually better than the evidence that Mark Antony or Cleopatra lived. In one long negative review of this book, the reviewer embraced many statements by sceptics and critics exercising much less critical discernment than he used in evaluating the book. Also, the reviewer made statements like "it is virtually universal" when the statement being made actually is not. Do not be put off by negative reviews. Read this book and make up your mind for yourself. Another book on the same topic is Josh McDowell, "He Walked Among Us." Try stacking up the evidence these two books provide against, say, whether Mark Antony ever really existed. (E.g., were the ancient people that wrote about Mark Antony's life either eyewitnesses of Mark Antony, or did they at least have access to people who were eyewitnesses? This kind of corroboration in ancient history is rare indeed, but that is precisely the kind of corrobation one finds in both the Gospels and Paul). Of course, there will never be a debate about Mark Antony because there isn't as much at stake. Keep this in mind when you read negative reviews. Neither negative reviews nor positive ones are completely objective, a fact that is clearly evident in both types of reviews for this book. Sceptics don't meet Habermas' facts head-on. Instead, they fall far short by countering his well-documented thesis with bold opinions they can't back up with evidence. For instance, one sceptic has said "How can we evaluate the evidence for Jesus? Our best account is the Gospel of Mark, written thirty years after Jesus died. ... Once Christians started mourning Jesus, historians recorded the movement. Does that mean Jesus was real? Okay, but it doesn't mean the Resurrection was real, or that Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. All of these mythical touches were invented after Jesus died, so he could "predict" events that happened between the time he died and the time the Gospels were composed. All of this leads us to the conclusion that there is no real evidence whether Jesus actually lived or not. “The story is what sold, and the story isn't true." What this sceptic fails to see is that his own account contradicts his claim, and proves false itself. According to his own words, Mark, our "best account" (of Jesus' life) was written "30 years after Jesus died;" thus putting Mark written c.60-63AD, since scholars (even sceptics) agree Jesus' death was around 30-33AD. The sceptic says that doesn't prove Jesus was able to make predictions, which he claims were "mythical touches" invented after Jesus died and prior to the written Gospels. But he fails to see the mathematically logical problem with his thesis; how is it that Jesus' prediction of the Temple destruction is recorded in Mark's Gospel, which was written years before the predicted event? MARK 13:2 "And Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another which will not be torn down." Even the reviewer admits the Temple was destroyed in 70AD, a known historical fact not seriously challenged by anyone, but he fails to explain why it was recorded as prophesied by Jesus in Mark, which he admits is our "best source" written in 60-63AD, at least 7 years beforehand.

24

Your Next Edition: On time

January 17th 2012

of the

Documents

globalwatchvision-Dec, 2011