Here we are again, another Christmas Sunday. The celebration of the birth of our Savior is a few days away. As I have done for the last couple of years, I’m breaking from our current Lord’s Day study, in our case this year, the book of Acts. I’m taking this Lord’s Day to teach about our Christmas celebration. Those who have been with us here at Calvary for a while may recall that two years ago, I titled the Christmas Sunday teaching, Debunking the Debunkers. Then last year I titled the Christmas Sunday teaching, Merry Non-Pagan Christmas.
The reason I have done this for the last couple of years is because the noise around Christmas gets louder all the time. I’m speaking of all the people who take to social media to remind the rest of us that Christmas is pagan. These people tell us that it originated with Roman Catholicism or Constantine, or the Druids, or some other pagan demonic source. Critics tell us that the day is really about the festival of the “Birth of the Unconquered Sun” or, Sol Invictus.[1]
Is any of this true? It is absolutely not true yet so many who profess Jesus Christ seem to take great pains to criticize and denigrate other Christians who celebrate the day set aside to commemorate the incarnation of the savior of the world.
The celebration of Sol Invictus or the Birth of the Unconquered Sun was made official policy of the Roman empire by Emperor Julian in 362 AD. Of interest to us in this teaching is that Julian moved the celebration of the Birth of the Unconquered Sun from November 18 to December 25. It was the pagans that tried to claim December 25 for their own and not the church who claimed a pagan day to commemorate the birth of Jesus. This is a matter of historical fact.
Now, are some of things we believe about the birth of Jesus inaccurate? Yes, they are. In fact, that’s what I want to talk about today.
Before I address the main subject of our teaching today – the manger in which the baby Jesus was laid in swaddling clothes – let me first address the date. It is highly unlikely that Jesus was born in December. Scholars point to a fall date, likely in September. Dr. Ken Johnson for example says:
Many scholars today believe Jesus was born on the Feast of Tabernacles (Tishrei 15, our September-October). The feast of Hanukkah, usually in December, has long been referred to as the second Tabernacles. John, in his Gospel, used the term “tabernacles” for Jesus’ birth. Most believe this is a prophecy teaching that Jesus would be born on the festival of Tabernacles…
The confusion about the date of Jesus’ birth comes from two factors. First, the Pharisees of the first century had two main calendars. These two Jewish calendars are the civil calendar that starts in the fall (Tishrei), and the religious calendar that starts in the Spring (Nisan). If Jesus was born on the 15th of the first month, that would place His birth on either Passover (Nisan 15) or the feast of Tabernacles (Tishrei 15). This explains why some church fathers thought Jesus was born in March/April and others thought September/October.[2]
Scholar and author Derek Gilbert has done extensive research on the subject of the date of celebrating the birth of Jesus. He writes this:
The selection of December 25 as the date to celebrate the birth of Christ had nothing to do with Saturnalia or the winter solstice. Besides, Saturnalia wasn’t always celebrated in December, and it wasn’t even originally named for Saturn. It was adapted from an older version known to the Greeks, celebrated for their version of Saturn, Kronos.
The Kronia is first recorded in Ionia, the central part of western Anatolia (modern Turkey) in the eighth century BC, a little before the time of the prophet Isaiah. From there, the celebration spread to Athens and the island of Rhodes, ultimately making its way westward to Rome, shifting over time from midsummer to the winter solstice…
It’s widely believed by skeptics, and some well-meaning but misinformed Christians, that the date for celebrating Christmas was chosen by the early church to “Christianize” Saturnalia. The story goes that the festival was so popular that even Christians in the Roman Empire wouldn’t give it up, so church leaders declared December 25 the birthday of Jesus, established a feast, and stole Saturnalia from the pagans.
That happens not to be the case.
The earliest record of the observance of Christmas is from Clement of Alexandria around AD 200. But the first suggestion that Christmas might be linked to pagan worship didn’t come until the twelfth century, about nine hundred years later. In other words, as far as historians can tell, no Christians between the third through twelfth centuries thought they were accidentally worshiping a pagan god at Christmas. While some noted the proximity of December 25 to the winter solstice, which falls on December 21 or 22, early Christian writers did not believe the church chose the date. Rather, they saw it as a sign that God was the true sun, superior to the false gods of the pagans.[3]
Johnson’s and Gilbert’s research has proved many historical facts concerning the origin and celebration of Christmas. Yet, the belief that “Christmas is pagan” remains. In my own life, there were some things I accepted as true without doing my own due diligence. I have since corrected my own views. One author that is found at the center of much of the “Christmas is pagan” falsehoods is Alexander Hislop (b. 1807 d. 1862). He wrote a book titled The Two Babylons, subtitled The Papal Worship Proved to Be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife. Author and researcher Dr. Ronald Huggins focuses on a major issue with Hislop’s book that demonstrates Hislop’s claims were simply not true. Huggins writes that:
Christmas time is approaching and as a result we may expect people to be posting a lot of nonsense about its alleged pagan origins based on reprints of the 1871 7th edition of Alexander Hislop’s Two Babylons…
The problem with Hislop’s book is that it was already terminally outdated when it came out. This is because it was rooted in scholarship relating to other religions and civilizations written BEFORE anyone could read the languages needed to understand the ancient religious monuments and texts. This did not stop them, however, from making sweeping claims about the common origins of the religions, and the meanings of their iconography, monuments, myths, and symbols, based on nothing but their own fertile imaginations. This resulted in a fanciful narrative that did not—indeed could not—take into account Champollion’s deciphering of Egyptian hieroglyphics using the trilingual Rosetta Stone in the 1820s (Hieroglyphic, Demotic, Greek) nor Sir Henry Rawlinson’s 1835 copying of the first characters from the trilingual Behistun Inscription in Iran (Old Persian, Elamite, Babylonian), which would ultimately provide the key to cracking cuneiform, the script used in Nineveh and Babylon. As Hislop depended on theories proposed before anyone knew cuneiform, it was not possible for him to, as the subtitle of Two Babylons claims, prove Papal Worship to be the religion of Nimrod and his wives, because he relied on scholarship that had no access to the languages and texts of Ninevah or Babylon.[4]
Author and researcher Ralph Woodrow was another individual taken in by Hislop’s supposed scholarship. Woodrow wrote his own book based on Hislop’s Two Babylon’s in which he argued for the same pagan origins. It became quite popular but over time he began receiving correspondence questioning the information Hislop based his Two Babylon’s on. Woodrow soon realized that he had unwittingly advanced a false narrative.
As time went on, however, I began to hear rumblings that Hislop was not a reliable historian. I heard this from a history teacher and in letters from people who heard this perspective expressed on the Bible Answer Man radio program. Even the Worldwide Church of God began to take a second look at the subject. As a result, I realized I needed to go back through Hislop’s work, my basic source, and prayerfully check it out.
As I did this, it became clear: Hislop’s “history” was often only an arbitrary piecing together of ancient myths. He claimed Nimrod was a big, ugly, deformed black man. His wife, Semiramis, was a beautiful white woman with blond hair and blue eyes. But she was a backslider known for her immoral lifestyle, the inventor of soprano singing and the originator of priestly celibacy. He said that the Babylonians baptized in water, believing it had virtue because Nimrod and Semiramis suffered for them in water; that Noah’s son Shem killed Nimrod; that Semiramis was killed when one of her sons cut off her head, and so on. I realized that no recognized history book substantiated these and many other claims…
As Christians, we don’t reject prayer just because pagans pray to their gods. We don’t reject water baptism just because ancient tribes plunged into water as a religious ritual. We don’t reject the Bible just because pagans believe their writings are holy or sacred.
The Bible mentions things like kneeling in prayer, raising hands, taking off shoes on holy ground, a holy mountain, a holy place in the temple, pillars in front of the temple, offering sacrifices without blemish, a sacred ark, cities of refuge, bringing forth water from a rock, laws written on stone, fire appearing on a person’s head, horses of fire, and the offering of first fruits. Yet, at one time or another, similar things were known among pagans. Does this make the Bible pagan? Of course not!
If finding a pagan parallel provides proof of paganism, the Lord Himself would be pagan. The woman called Mystery Babylon had a cup in her hand; the Lord has a cup in His hand (Ps. 75:8). Pagan kings sat on thrones and wore crowns; the Lord sits on a throne and wears a crown (Rev. 1:4; 14:14). Pagans worshiped the sun; the Lord is the “Sun of righteousness” (Mal. 4:2). Pagan gods were likened to stars; the Lord is called “the bright and Morning star” (Rev. 22:16). Pagan gods had temples dedicated to them; the Lord has a temple (Rev. 7:15). Pagans built a high tower in Babylon; the Lord is a high tower (2 Sam. 22:3). Pagans worshiped idolatrous pillars; the Lord appeared as a pillar of fire (Exod. 13: 21–22). Pagan gods were pictured with wings; the Lord is pictured with wings (Ps. 91:4).[5]
Now concerning the date of December 25 as the day Christians celebrate Christmas, Dr. William Tighe, Professor of History at Muhlenberg College in Allentown, Pennsylvania, wrote the following in an article he titled, Calculating Christmas: The Stoy Behind December 25, the following:
The idea that the date was taken from the pagans goes back to two scholars from the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. Paul Ernst Jablonski, a German Protestant, wished to show that the celebration of Christ’s birth on December 25th was one of the many “paganizations” of Christianity that the Church of the fourth century embraced, as one of many “degenerations” that transformed pure apostolic Christianity into Catholicism. Dom Jean Hardouin, a Benedictine monk, tried to show that the Catholic Church adopted pagan festivals for Christian purposes without paganizing the gospel.
In the Julian calendar, created in 45 B.C. under Julius Caesar, the winter solstice fell on December 25th, and it therefore seemed obvious to Jablonski and Hardouin that the day must have had a pagan significance before it had a Christian one. But in fact, the date had no religious significance in the Roman pagan festal calendar before Aurelian’s time, nor did the cult of the sun play a prominent role in Rome before him.
As things actually happened, Aurelian, who ruled from 270 until his assassination in 275, was hostile to Christianity and appears to have promoted the establishment of the festival of the “Birth of the Unconquered Sun” as a device to unify the various pagan cults of the Roman Empire around a commemoration of the annual “rebirth” of the sun. He led an empire that appeared to be collapsing in the face of internal unrest, rebellions in the provinces, economic decay, and repeated attacks from German tribes to the north and the Persian Empire to the east.
In creating the new feast, he intended the beginning of the lengthening of the daylight, and the arresting of the lengthening of darkness, on December 25th to be a symbol of the hoped-for “rebirth,” or perpetual rejuvenation, of the Roman Empire, resulting from the maintenance of the worship of the gods whose tutelage (the Romans thought) had brought Rome to greatness and world-rule. If it co-opted the Christian celebration, so much the better.[6]
Concerning the date of December 25 as the recognition of the birth of Jesus among Christians, it appears that second-century Christians in Rome and North Africa settled on a date of March 25, 29 AD, as the date of Jesus’ death. That decision was completely arbitrary as Passover did not fall in March that year. But it was chosen nonetheless as the date of Jesus’ death. At that time the Jews believed that noteworthy prophets died on the same day they were conceived. Again, extremely unlikely. But when we add nine months to March 25 we arrive at December 25.[7] Roman Catholics still celebrate March 25 as the Feast of Annunciation.[8]
A more accurate calculation is provided by the late E. L. Martin, a meteorologist and astronomer who wrote a book published in 1996 titled The Star of Bethlehem: The Star That Astonished the World. His research focused on Revelation 12:1-5 and the prophetic clues to the birth of Jesus found there. He believed that astronomically, the stars aligned over the skies of Jerusalem as written in Revelation 12, on September 11, 3 BC.
None other than Charles Haddon Spurgeon brings balance to our position concerning Christmas. In an 1871 sermon Spurgeon spoke these words:
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. (My note – I’ll address this common belief in this teaching)
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).[9]
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?
Here is one author’s response to these questions and to those who cry “Christmas is pagan.”
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.[10]
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.[11]
We have accomplished several things thus far. One, that Christmas is not a pagan holiday “Christianized” by the church. Two, we have good reason to believe that Jesus was likely born in the fall, our September-October time frame. Three, whether to celebrate Christmas or not is a matter of conscience. What it is most definitely not, is occasion for other Christians to berate, ridicule, demean, or mark as heretics Christians whose conscience allows them freedom to celebrate the birth of Jesus.
Long before Charles Schultz made the reading of Luke 2 famous in his A Charlie Brown Christmas in 1965, Luke 2 was widely known as the “Christmas Story” chapter. Here is Luke 2:1-20.
1 Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. 2 This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. 3 And everyone was on his way to register for the census, each to his own city. 4 Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David, 5 in order to register along with Mary, who was engaged to him, and was with child. 6 While they were there, the days were completed for her to give birth. 7 And she gave birth to her firstborn son; and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.
8 In the same region there were some shepherds staying out in the fields and keeping watch over their flock by night. 9 And an angel of the Lord suddenly stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them; and they were terribly frightened. 10 But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of great joy which will be for all the people; 11 for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. 12 This will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.” 13 And suddenly there appeared with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying,
14 “Glory to God in the highest,
And on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased.”
15 When the angels had gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds began saying to one another, “Let us go straight to Bethlehem then, and see this thing that has happened which the Lord has made known to us.” 16 So they came in a hurry and found their way to Mary and Joseph, and the baby as He lay in the manger. 17 When they had seen this, they made known the statement which had been told them about this Child. 18 And all who heard it wondered at the things which were told them by the shepherds. 19 But Mary treasured all these things, pondering them in her heart. 20 The shepherds went back, glorifying and praising God for all that they had heard and seen, just as had been told them.
Hidden in plain sight in this passage is a rich and majestic proclamation of God’s grace and mercy toward His creation. Centuries of tradition and misunderstanding of the Hebrew culture of the day have resulted in a distorted story of what I call the manger scene.
Let me present the real picture of that starry night when the announcement came that the Savior of the world had been born. First of all, these were no ordinary shepherds. Likewise, the sheep were not ordinary sheep. Our first clue to this fact is that the shepherds were out in the open fields in the worse season of the year – the rainy season. Normally shepherds would take refuge in a nearby structure, out of the elements during this season. But it was required of them to be out in the elements with the sheep. More on that in a moment.
A second clue is a phrase we read in verse 8 concerning the purpose of the shepherds – “some shepherds staying out in the fields and keeping watch over their flock by night.” The phrase watch over is in the Greek the word phylakas. This word means to guard. The shepherds were guarding the sheep. Some might say, “Well of course they were guarding the sheep. There were vicious animals that might kill the sheep. The shepherd’s job is to protect and guard the sheep.” This is certainly true. But, again, these were no ordinary shepherds nor were these ordinary sheep.
Howard Hewitt, in an article posted on the Wabash College blog site recounts his trip to Israel and a specific excursion to Bethlehem. There he gained insight that most Christians today are sadly, unaware of. Here are Hewitt’s comments.
The shepherds of Bethlehem (My note – the shepherds mentioned in Luke 2) were in charge of raising sheep for the temple sacrifices. According to the laws of the time the sheep that were used for the offerings had to be a one-year-old male sheep that had been outside for 365 days (one-year). Since these sheep needed to remain outside the shepherds were also outside, not using the cave during the awful winter (rainy season). You can see this in Luke 2: 8, “That night some shepherds were in the fields outside the village, guarding their flocks of sheep”. Once the sheep were of age the shepherds would bring them to the city of Jerusalem to be sacrificed for the Sabbath (Friday). It was important that the sheep that was to be sacrificed did not possess any blemishes (broken legs, or injuries). Once the sheep’s blood was completely spilled for all of the sins the priest would return to the people and proclaim, “It is finished”.[12]
Jerusalem and Bethlehem are only a few miles apart. So, it was easy for these special shepherds to deliver these special sheep. Messianic Rabbi Zev Porat tells us what made these shepherds more than ordinary.
This special class of shepherds was responsible for the sacrificial system of Temple worship. They served the Mosaic covenant by looking after the sheep that would be given as offerings, and they were specialists in raising and preparing lambs for the ongoing rituals. It was the specific duty for which they had been trained, and they were held strictly accountable.
…There were shepherds who were from the priestly families according to the Mishnah Berkhorot 5:4. Could the shepherds of Luke 2:8 be priests?
…History records that the Bethlehem fields were a consecrated place because the sheep and cattle used for sacrifice in the Temple were raised in this area surrounding Jerusalem. Eusebius, the church historian, records the location of the fields as Migdal Eder, a unique biblical location.[13]
The Pulpit Commentary says this of Genesis 35:21 – And thou O tower of the flock (Migdal Eder). There was a village with a tower so-called near Bethlehem.[14] Here’s an important point within the Luke 2 narrative. The tower of the flock is Migdal Eder.
In Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible, we read this entry for Genesis 35:21:
And thou, O tower of the flock…The words Migdal Eder are left by some untranslated, and think that place to be intended so called, which was near Bethlehem…this is supposed to be near the place where the shepherds were watching over their flocks at the time of Christ’s birth.[15]
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says:
This “tower of the flock,” which may have been only a tower and no town.[16]
Strong’s Concordance, NAS Exhaustive Concordance, Brown-Driver-Briggs, and Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance all record that Migdal-Eder speaks specifically of a “flock tower” at Bethlehem.[17]
Albert Edersheim wrote this in his classic treatment of Jesus’ birth in his Nativity of Jesus the Messiah.
That the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem, was a settled conviction. Equally so was the belief, that He was to be revealed from Migdal Eder, the tower of the flock…Thus Jewish tradition…apprehended the first revelation of the Messiah from that Migdal Eder [tower of the flock], where shepherds watched the Temple-flocks all the year round. Of the deep symbolic significance of such a coincidence, it is needless to speak.[18]
What we have just learned is that a special class of shepherds who were themselves priests, guarded flocks of sheep dedicated for Temple sacrifices in fields set apart for this purpose. In these fields there were also towers referred to in Genesis and other places as Migdal Eder or Tower of the Flock. There is also something important about these towers.
Let’s bring some more detail into the truth concerning the birth of Jesus.
The NASB, ESV, and KJV all say that Mary laid Jesus in “a” manger. Young’s Literal Translation however, says, of Luke 2:7, that Mary “brought forth her son — the first-born, and wrapped him up, and laid him down in the manger, because there was not for them a place in the guest-chamber.”
Mary laid baby Jesus in the manger not simply a manger. We find a clue to the location of this specific manger in Micah 4:8. The ESV reads:
And you, O tower of the flock, hill of the daughter of Zion, to you shall it come, the former dominion shall come, kingship for the daughter of Jerusalem.
To you it shall come…kingship for the daughter of Jerusalem. This verse in the book of the prophet Micah is speaking of the birth of Messiah Jesus. This verse adds more intrigue to our quest to understand what the Tower of the Flock was. Is it a specific place or is this reference just a figure of speech?
Before we answer that question, let’s understand why there was no “place for them in the inn” as Luke 2:7 tells us.
Here is pastor and author Carl Gallups giving us an expanded narrative about the inn being full. Speaking of Mary and Joseph arriving at the inn, Gallups says:
By the time they arrive, it is already growing late in the day. To their dismay, they find the city’s small inn is already “filled” as well – or at least that’s what the innkeeper claims. He tells them this bad news while gazing at Marry’s extremely rounded belly, ripe with child. And that’s not to mention the fact that she is beginning to grimace in the midst of the early onset of birth pangs. Few innkeepers would want that extra burden. Neither would they welcome the accompanying noise, mess, and responsibility. Plus, there would be complaints from the other residents. To further complicate the matter, there is the Jewish law of separation regarding women in the those of childbirth. This is a disaster waiting to happen, as far as the innkeeper is concerned; he will have no part of it. It’s not that thee are no more rooms…it’s simply that there are no more rooms for her.[19]
There was no place for them in the inn because Mary was ready to give birth, and that circumstance meant that according to the law she was unclean. No vacancy meant no vacancy for a woman who would be unclean for seven days after birth. You can read this requirement in Leviticus 12:1-5.
Now here is the significance of all we’ve considered thus far. In the sheep fields around Bethlehem in those days, were watchtowers from which the shepherd priests scanned the terrain for predators. They are called in the Scriptures towers of the flock. At the base of these towers the shepherd priests constructed birthing rooms. These birthing rooms were stalls that were used to deliver the newborn lambs who had to be spotless and without blemish, so great care was given to them. Once born, these lambs were wrapped in swaddling bands and placed in the stall’s mangers. This marked them as a special sacrificial lamb for the sins of the people.
Jesus was born in the manger at the base of a tower of the flock and was wrapped in swaddling clothes and placed in the manger in the tower stall. Why? Because Jesus was born to be the sacrificial lamb of God. John the Baptist rightly said of Jesus – “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” John 1:29
There was nothing about the birth of Jesus that was an accident. Every detail has significance.
The apostle Paul writing to the Galatians said:
26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
We are clothed with Christ. Just as the lambs were clothed to keep them unblemished, so we are clothed in Christ and made ready for our joyous homecoming to see Him face to face one day; the One who took away our sins by His death and resurrection.
Why do we celebrate Christmas? Because we love our Lord Jesus and are eternally grateful for the salvation, He made a way for us to receive.
Don’t allow misinformed people to steal your joy over celebrating the birth of Jesus. Celebrate our coming King and share the message of Christ with those who are in unbelief. In this season more than any other, people’s minds entertain the idea of Jesus and even if Jesus is who Christians say He is. We must take advantage of this opportunity to speak the name of Jesus.
Eternal salvation is offered to whosoever will believe. That is the best Christmas gift ever!
Dr. Mike Spaulding
You may support The Transforming Word Ministry by sending your gifts to:
Dr. Mike Spaulding
PO Box 3007
Lima, OH 45807
Online via Swipe Simple (preferred)
https://swipesimple.com/links/lnk_661b3836
Or by PayPal support@drmikespaulding.com
Image by Ken Williams from Pixabay
[1] Sol Invictus (Classical Latin: [ˈsoːɫ ɪnˈwɪktʊs], “Invincible Sun” or “Unconquered Sun”) was the official sun god of the late Roman Empire and a later version of the god Sol. The emperor Aurelian revived his cult in 274 CE and promoted Sol Invictus as the chief god of the empire. From Aurelian onward, Sol Invictus often appeared on imperial coinage, usually shown wearing a sun crown and driving a horse-drawn chariot through the sky. His prominence lasted until the emperor Constantine I legalized Christianity and restricted paganism. The last known inscription referring to Sol Invictus dates to CE 387, although there were enough devotees in the fifth century that the Christian theologian Augustine found it necessary to preach against them. Found here – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_Invictus
[2] Ken Johnson, Ancient Origins of Modern Holidays, Self-Published, 2019, pp. 92-93, 110.
[3] Derek Gilbert, The Truth About Christmas and Saturnalia. December 8, 2022. Found here – https://allpropastors.org/the-truth-about-christmas-and-saturnalia/ From the book The Second Coming of Saturn, by Derek Gilbert
[4] Marcia Montenegro, “Myths From Hislop: A Call To Examine Facts,” Found here – https://www.christiananswersnewage.com/article/myths-from-hislop-a-call-to-examine-facts See also this video by author and researcher Joel Richardson which debunks Hislop’s claims. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhL3ZspNtRg
[5] Ralph Woodrow, The Two Babylons: A Case Study in Poor Methodology, Christian Research Institute, April 9, 2009, updated October 19, 2022. https://www.equip.org/articles/the-two-babylons/
[6] William Tighe, “Calculating Christmas: The Story Behind December 25.” Touchstone Magazine, December 2003 Issue. Found here – https://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=16-10-012-v&readcode=&readtherest=true#therest
[7] Additional resources for understanding the reasons Christians celebrate the birth of Messiah Jesus, see these links – https://desiderantangeli.blogspot.com/2015/12/christmas-is-not-pagan.html?m=0 ; https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/how-december-25-became-christmas/ ; https://www.equip.org/articles/the-two-babylons/
[8] See for instance here – https://www.ncregister.com/blog/why-march-25-the-annunciation-was-once-new-year-s-day
[9] Desiderant Angeli, “Christmas Is Not Pagan,” December 15, 2015. Found here – https://desiderantangeli.blogspot.com/2015/12/christmas-is-not-pagan.html?m=0
[10] There is a segment of the Church of Christ which only sings songs a cappella based on their belief that musical instruments are not mentioned in the Scriptures. Apparently, they don’t read the Psalms.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Howard Hewitt, “Story of Bethlehem Sheep More Than Legend,” Wabash College Immersion Training Blog. Found here – https://blog.wabash.edu/immersionlearning/2014/03/14/story-of-bethlehem-sheep-more-than-legend/
[13] Zev Porat, Unmasking the Chaldean Spirit, (Crane, MO: Defender Publishing, 2022), pp.181-182.
[14] Ibid., p. 183.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid., p. 184.
[18] Ibid., p. 185.
[19] Carl Gallups, Glimpses of Glory, (Crane, MO, Defender Publishing, 2021), p.128.