Oh Pagan Tree

[EdSutton]

http://www.biblebelievers.com/babylon/sect31.htm
Online book, The Two Babylons, by Alexander Hislop is one.
Scroll down to the babylonian forms of paganism and its influence on the pagan religion of Rome.

I happen to be one who used to cite Alexander Hislop, fairly frequently.

However, I did some research to find that it appeared to me that, too often, there was a lot of speculation and conjecture mixed in among the facts, and "the whole ball of wax" was being summarily arrived at in a questionable manner.

FTR, I nearly left my own home church, based on something he had written in Two Babylons that I fortunately, just in time, found out was baseless.

'Nuff said, that now I am extremely leery of citing Alexander Hislop, without further research. I would simply suggest anyone would do well to do a bit more research into things he has stated, before using him as an authority, as well.

Here is another I used to cite, Brother Ralph Woodrow, who had based a lot of his stuff on Hislop. You (and others) might be interested in reading what he has now said, since he is still around to defend himself.

http://www.ralphwoodrow.org/books/pages/babylon-connection.html

http://www.ralphwoodrow.org/books/pages/babylon-mystery.html

Ed

 

[Palatka51]

As with theology, so with language generally: Winston had it right when he spoke of two nations (or should that now be pagan cults?) divided by a common language. 'Baubles' are those shiny (usually gold or silver) thin glass spheres which one suspends from the branches. Other items which may also be suspended include mini-Santas (don't forget that 'Santa' is an anagram of 'Satan' , which is why we Pure Ones in the UK refer to him as 'Father Christmas' - who is obviously another pre-Christian pagan deity) like the one massacred by the cat the other night, mini-stockings, mini-present boxes, chocolates, fir cones, tinsel and red ribbons. Collectively these are known here not by the appellation 'ornaments' but 'decorations'. In this way we better preserve the authenticity of our paganism as opposed to the debased deviationist version in North America.

Now you've done it. You have messed with old St Nick! :BangHead: He is real and I know it. The kids had set milk and cookies out for him every year for 12 years of their lives. And they get eaten.

Waite! I remember now, that was me at 4am still sleep walking trying to put bicycles together. I am the one that ate the cookies and drank the milk. Please don't tell the kids (now 20 and 25). They would be so devastated. :laugh:

Again, I am into this "pagan" game just as you are. I have spoken up for antiaging's convictions and the mockery that was directed at him. I must say though, his poem fueled the fire. Yet it does not offend me because I know that I am not "pagan". However the mockery of someone's convictions does.

Celebrating Christ's birth was never a mandated observance of the Church. We were told by Christ to remember His death not His birth. This Holiday has come by the traditions of men not by the oracles of God. This is the crux of his conviction.

The fact that we celebrate His birth on the 25th of this month by traditions rather than by scripture is not a bad thing in and of itself. I honestly believe this tradition has a connotation of victory about it.

Victory in that faith in Christ has overcome the paganism of our Gentile fathers. The traditions of trees, logs, stockings and St Nick are symbols of the ancient past that now bow to the God of Heaven that cared enough to send His Son to a world that knew Him not. John 3:16 rules, not the writings of some ancient Babylonian text.

And Tim,

Someone help me before someone calls me a Liar!
I remember ABCGrad, Bitsy, Rbell, and others.. .even Pal was on there talking about Ward Cleaver, and tin foil, and how Antiaging's ideas were ludicrous...

I do remember Pope TV. That was a funny thread. I am still laughing at that one. Or better yet was the thread on living forever by taking vitamins. :laugh: These things are laughable but please, exhort with grace when a brother seems convicted over a biblical conundrum in conflict with traditions of men.

As DHK already posted,

Romans 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
--This is the other principle that Paul sets forth. The verse is not speaking of salvation, and the word "damned" means "condemned" as one's conscience condemns oneself. Guilt condemns. Thus Paul says: "whatsoever is not of faith is sin." If I cannot put up a tree or celebrate Christmas in faith (in confidence in the Lord that I am doing right), then it is sin. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

Someone once put it very simply: "If in doubt, don't."
That basically sums it up.
Again, it is a matter of soul liberty. Each person needs to study the issue out on their own, come to their own conclusion, and then avoid judging their brother for the decision he has made.
Having that basic understanding there is still nothing wrong in discussing the subject.

 

[annsni]

This one does have me confused.. This past summer antiaging had a whole thread devoted to his theory about how the Roman Catholic Church is using TVs to spy on people in the world...
But now that thread seems to have disappeared. Who is able to make threads disappear around here?

It is strange that when I am accused of making a false allegation, the thread to prove it just disappears into thin air.
Can someone help me find it.. maybe I am looking in the wrong places...

Someone help me before someone calls me a Liar!
I remember ABCGrad, Bitsy, Rbell, and others.. .even Pal was on there talking about Ward Cleaver, and tin foil, and how Antiaging's ideas were ludicrous...

Tim - I wonder if it got purged at some point. I totally remember that thread. It was crazy. Antiaging spoke of how when he watches TV, those on the screen respond to him and thus they must be able to see him in his living room. He told everyone to not just turn off the TV but unplug it, IIRC, because they could still see you when the TV is off. It was definitely there, brother.

 

[donnA]

22Ye shall defile also the covering of thy graven images of silver, and the ornament of thy molten images of gold: thou shalt cast them away as a menstruous cloth; thou shalt say unto it, Get thee hence.

This verse is talking about making flase gods to worship them, a purposeful act of worship, and act inteded to be worship, just as when you go to church(or anywhere for that matter, but I said church because it's a place you actually have to go to out of you way) you intend and purposely worship God.
Same for the Jeremiah 10 verses.

I don't think that it is comely in the eyes of God to mock ones convictions

Do you think it's good to use personal convictions against others as a measure of their spirituality and obedience to God? I don't think this is comely in the eyes of God either.

Your points would have merit if any of us bowed down to and worshipped the baubles on our trees. We don't, so your points are devoid of any such merit.

 

[annsni]

I've thumbed throught the Bible and I can't find any mention of an axe used to carve a tree.

I use the King James 1611 edition and I will quote JEREMIAH 10'verse 3.
"For the custon of the people are vain:for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe."
It doesn't explain how they design the tree.
Could you quote the same verse if you are using a different version of a Bible.
This Bible, the 1611 leaves no definite type of tree, or how it is carved.
Thank you

All that the 1611 say's that the work of the hands of the workman with the axe. I don't won't to read something in to it, but on the other hand I don't won't to enlarge some other meaning into it. One would be just as bad as the other.

KJV: For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.

NASB: For the customs of the peoples are (A)delusion;
Because (B)it is wood cut from the forest,
The work of the hands of a craftsman with a cutting tool.

ESV: for the customs of the peoples are vanity.[a](B) A tree from the forest is cut down
and worked with an axe by the hands of a craftsman.


It does not take a craftsman to cut down a tree. The word in the KJV that is translated "workman" doesn't give it the sense of the expertness of the worker, but the Hebrew word is "charash" which means a skilled person. The tree cut down from the forest would not be a "work" because what is cutting a tree? It's just something that the children could have done. Yet we see that the tree was the work of a skilled worker, cut with an axe. That certainly is more than just cutting an evergreen from the forest.

Read Isaiah 44:9-28 to read more about the same subject.

 

[Spinach]

What if you don't cut it? What if you buy one with the roots still attached, pot it, and plant it in the Spring?

I did that last year, but sadly, the tree didn't make it. Let's just say I don't have a green thumb.

 

[donnA]

Wow, this tree thing has really touched a nerve. Isn't that very interesting?! Now that we have pointed out everyone's personal idols wouldn't it behoove all of us to do what even the New Testament commands and put away idolatry? Somehow I don't believe there will be one of us willing to be the first. As I said before, I have a tree. I have only spoken on this issue because I felt that a member of BB was being mocked for his convictions.

Who are you accusing of idol worship? I guess that includes you since you have a christmas tree.
For some money is an idol, for some food is an idol, should we all throw these out also just becasue some have made them an idol?
Don't you think it depends on the intent of the heart?

Good, then post them. Without the ungodly attitude and mockery.
"Who art thou that judgest thy brother?"

Pretty sure this was violated in the op, condemeing and judging others because they have a christmas tree.

Yes.. it is OK to redeem something from paganism

if it weren't we'd all be going to hell, and Christ died in vain, because as you said, God redeemed us from paganism.

Here is the way I see it.
The matter of having a Christmas tree; celebrating Christmas, etc., is a matter of soul liberty for each and every believer. The principles we need to go by are found in Romans 14.

Yet some on this thread would deny the freedoms we have in Christ.

 

[donnA]

What if you don't cut it? What if you buy one with the roots still attached, pot it, and plant it in the Spring?

I did that last year, but sadly, the tree didn't make it. Let's just say I don't have a green thumb.

Supose it isn't cut at all, it's artificial, shows this verse doesn't apply, even if you were to twist it more then it's already been done.

 

[donnA]

I didn't think calendars that far back, pre NT or even NT times, had the month of DECEMBER on them.
I think we need to start right there, proving that OT time period calendars had the month of DECEMBER on them.

I didn't see anyone(like the op) try and answer this post so I am posting it again. Since this is part of the op's argument he needs to back this up.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I didn't see anyone(like the op) try and answer this post so I am posting it again. Since this is part of the op's argument he needs to back this up.

Our calander is Roman in origin. December is actually a Roman designation indicating the 10th month. December comes from Decem or 10. So Roman numbers read like this
Unus
duo
Tres
Quatuor
Quinquae
Sex
Septem
Octo
Novem
Decem

The month of July is named in honor of Julius Caesar.

 

[Palatka51]

I didn't see anyone(like the op) try and answer this post so I am posting it again. Since this is part of the op's argument he needs to back this up.

December is not the issue. The issue is whether it is appropriate to have a tree. I have shown that it does not matter. I can tell that you are responding to my posts wrong. It is not, nor has it ever been my intent, to accuse anyone of idolatry. I have posted why antiaging has his conviction in relation to scripture and that it would not be appropriate to mock that. :BangHead: Mocking Pope TV and a live forever vitamin regimen is just plain hilarious. :laugh:

If in any case anyone has taken my posts as judgmental opinions on the idolatry of fellow brothers and sisters in Christ then I humbly seek your forgiveness. However, For speaking against mockery of one that has a biblical basis for conviction I do not repent.

Mel

 

[Matt Black]

...except that it doesn't have any Biblical basis - as has been demonstrated.

 

[Palatka51]

...except that it doesn't have any Biblical basis - as has been demonstrated.

So it is Biblical then to mock your brother. It is ever increasingly evident that this generation has nothing in common with Philadelphia.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

So it is Biblical then to mock your brother. It is ever increasingly evident that this generation has nothing in common with Philadelphia.

Tempers please.

So who's on what side? All I know is that if there are personal convictions about not making an idol to a Christmas tree that is a legitamate consern. However, to be consistent you then should be convicted about Celebrating the birth of the Lord on Winter's solstice (and his date of birth has been determined not to actually be on December 25th). Or Using the Roman Calander which venerates several Gods including the roman emperor. In fact if you look at all the pagan influences in our society you may be distraught.

 

[Palatka51]

Tempers please.

So who's on what side? All I know is that if there are personal convictions about not making an idol to a Christmas tree that is a legitamate consern. However, to be consistent you then should be convicted about Celebrating the birth of the Lord on Winter's solstice (and his date of birth has been determined not to actually be on December 25th). Or Using the Roman Calander which venerates several Gods including the roman emperor. In fact if you look at all the pagan influences in our society you may be distraught.

Okay, I am getting a headache. I am protesting the mockery, period. I am not protesting the use of a tree, calendar or anything that has a pagan root in tradition. It is the mockery that I have an issue with.

All I know is that if there are personal convictions about not making an idol to a Christmas tree that is a legitamate consern.

Thank you. And that should not be mocked but be thought through with an attempt to teach.

 

[EdSutton]

Our calander is Roman in origin. December is actually a Roman designation indicating the 10th month. December comes from Decem or 10. So Roman numbers read like this
Unus
duo
Tres
Quatuor
Quinquae
S*x (My editing. due to 'invasive', lewd links popping up - Ed)
Septem
Octo
Novem
Decem

The month of July is named in honor of Julius Caesar.

And the month of August (originally S*xtilis) is also named in honor of Octavian (Augustus Caesar) just as was July (which month was originally Qunitilis, I believe?) named in honor of Julius Caesar. It seems, if I correctly remember my history, that the Roman Senate, which decreed the name changes, in honor of the two Emperors, did not want these two months to be shorter than the longest month, so 'borrowed' a day from February, a 'cold' and bad weather month. The months 'seven' (September) through 'ten' (December) actually became the months of nine through twelve, but without receiving any name change, as for some reason, the 'counting' had originally began with the first month of Spring, namely 'March' presumably after the Roman god of war, Mars. Later, the year was decreed to start (by Julius Caesar, with his modification and the adoption of the 'Julian' calender), from January, hence, the discrepancy, of the last four months of the year, relative to number.

Asd I said, this is if I remember correctly, although anyone may feel free to correct my memory, which is now nothing like as good as it was 45 years ago, I will freely admit.

Incidentally, all this has little to do with any supposed "pagan tree" that I can see.

Ed

 

[Thinkingstuff]

And the month of August (originally S*xtilis) is also named in honor of Octavian (Augustus Caesar) just as was July (which month was originally Qunitilis, I believe?) named in honor of Julius Caesar. It seems, if I correctly remember my history, that the Roman Senate, which decreed the name changes, in honor of the two Emperors, did not want these two months to be shorter than the longest month, so 'borrowed' a day from February, a 'cold' and bad weather month. The months 'seven' (September) through 'ten' (December) actually became the months of nine through twelve, but without receiving any name change, as for some reason, the 'counting' had originally began with the first month of Spring, namely 'March' presumably after the Roman god of war, Mars. Later, the year was decreed to start (by Julius Caesar, with his modification and the adoption of the 'Julian' calender), from January, hence, the discrepancy, of the last four months of the year, relative to number.

Asd I said, this is if I remember correctly, although anyone may feel free to correct my memory, which is now nothing like as good as it was 45 years ago, I will freely admit.

Incidentally, all this has little to do with any supposed "pagan tree" that I can see.

Ed

Links automatically get associated with a word? Sorry, I didn't know that. It doesn't show up on my computer that way. I was just using latin.

 

[Matt Black]

New Year's Day being 1st January is an even more recent innovation, being that of the Gregorian Calendar, which replaced the Julian in Britain in 1752 (and as late as 1918 in Russia). New Years Day under the Julian Calendar was March 25th; hence, for example, March 24th 1700 was followed by March 25th 1701. It also explains why in some history books you will see someone referred to as having been born or died in '1652/3' ; rather than meaning that historians aren't sure in which year the individual died, it simply means that s/he died between January 1st and March 24th in the year in question. For example, King William III died on March 8th 1702, according to the Gregorian reckoning*, but in older history books you can come across 'March 8th 1701/2' or even 'March 8th 1701'.

*Only according to the reckoning of years; according to the reckoning of days, it would have been March 20th under the Gregorian Calendar, since it was at that point some 12 days ahead of the Julian. That's also why in Russia the 'February Revolution' and 'October Revolution' of 1917 actually occurred in March and November respectively under the Gregorian reckoning. Now, please may I go and get a life?!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

New Year's Day being 1st January is an even more recent innovation, being that of the Gregorian Calendar, which replaced the Julian in Britain in 1752 (and as late as 1918 in Russia). New Years Day under the Julian Calendar was March 25th; hence, for example, March 24th 1700 was followed by March 25th 1701. It also explains why in some history books you will see someone referred to as having been born or died in '1652/3' ; rather than meaning that historians aren't sure in which year the individual died, it simply means that s/he died between January 1st and March 24th in the year in question. For example, King William III died on March 8th 1702, according to the Gregorian reckoning*, but in older history books you can come across 'March 8th 1701/2' or even 'March 8th 1701'.

*Only according to the reckoning of years; according to the reckoning of days, it would have been March 20th under the Gregorian Calendar, since it was at that point some 12 days ahead of the Julian. That's also why in Russia the 'February Revolution' and 'October Revolution' of 1917 actually occurred in March and November respectively under the Gregorian reckoning. Now, please may I go and get a life?!

I love academia. I consider this information cool. But then I'm a nerd.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Paraphrasing Joe Parsons, "Don't take away my Christmas. It's the only time of year I get new underwear."

Or was it socks? I can't remember now.

I'm of the opinion that a Christian can take any traditional holiday and make it what they want. I'm not bound to not worship Jesus my way just because it was originally pagan. I know many churches that put on a "harvest party" on Halloween. I also know churches that have a New Year's Eve service, as opposed to a drunken party in Time's Square. It's really all in what you make of it.

Now on to the jokes...

If you want to be really strict, and have scripture to back it up, try these out:

Santa Clause: [Zec 2:6] Ho, Ho, come forth, and flee from the land of the north, saith the Lord: for I have spread you abroad as the four winds of the heaven, saith the Lord.

Santa, turkeys, Easter bunnies, and Halloween spooks: [Rom 1:23] And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

GE:
You call these, 'jokes'?
No wonder my brother says we Ebersoehns have no sense of humour. maybe also because of the German blood - they are very serious about Christmas.

I think we must just keep this away from the Scriptures. They are a bad mix, bitter like gall and venomous like a rattle snake; I mean, the potion.