Jesus could not have been born on December 25th


Many preachers today do not believe that Jesus was born on December 25th, and for obvious biblical reasons, such as what we have been mentioning concerning the course of Abijah, Elizabeth conceiving during that time, and then hiding for 5 months, and in the sixth month of Elizabeth's birth, Mary conceiving, thus giving birth 9 months later.

There were 2 times of the year, within their main (non-feast) priestly duties via courses for the division of Abijah, and they were held in June/July and later in December/January.

And if you calculate both, none of them bring you to December.

Say June 15 is when Elizabeth conceived, well 15 months later, which is when Mary gives birth, it would bring you roughly to September 15th, give or take.

But say December 15th is when Elizabeth conceived, well 15 months later, which is when Mary gives birth, it would bring you roughly to March 15th, give or take.

Many bear witness to the earlier time June/July, for many reasons, and there are other reasons that people give towards that that I have not mentioned.

And it just fits, even via how many important biblical events tend to happen on feast days.

Right now, I am looking at history via what is called Christmas, even Epiphany, and comparing history with history, via many articles, even through the Encyclopedia Britannica, my dad gave me, via the 1960 edition.

I will first place it in a word document, and some things said, do not add up with the whole, but I will seek to be as accurate as possible.

Is the narrative that first comes in most searches, the truth ? Not always.

Gerbolski said:

Yes, there was a real person called Nicholas, but the stories fabricated around him are wrong, and are fables, so we should not give heed to fables.

Click to expand...

He was a Bishop of Myra so Catholic. Catholics are heavily rooted in tradition so are all sects of Christianity to some level.
Helping the poor, sick, and children is a CORE part of Christianity regardless of sect. From that, inference about him doing that happened. Inflated? Possibly. Totally fabricated? No.

Currently no know writings by him or other evidence to support them but doesn't mean they don't exist.
In fact, what he did was so good and great he inspired Santa Clause. The Christmas season is flooded with Christian values towards each other and to reverence our Lord.
Most certainly NOT anything to do with Left/Liberal beliefs.

MedicBravo said:

He was a Bishop of Myra so Catholic. Catholics are heavily rooted in tradition so are all sects of Christianity to some level.
Helping the poor, sick, and children is a CORE part of Christianity regardless of sect. From that, inference about him doing that happened. Inflated? Possibly. Totally fabricated? No.

Currently no know writings by him or other evidence to support them but doesn't mean they don't exist.
In fact, what he did was so good and great he inspired Santa Clause. The Christmas season is flooded with Christian values towards each other and to reverence our Lord.
Most certainly NOT anything to do with Left/Liberal beliefs.

Click to expand...

Helping the poor, the sick, and all that in and of itself, is right, but the fable they made up of him, were some man rides in a slay with flying reindeers, and has godly attributes, is a lie no matter how much people want to deny this, we have to be honest, instead of defending fables.

Gerbolski said:

Helping the poor, the sick, and all that in and of itself, is right, but the fable they made up of him, were some man rides in a slay with flying reindeers, and has godly attributes, is a lie no matter how much people want to deny this, we have to be honest, instead of defending fables.

Click to expand...

That bishop of Myra was not a fable, but Santa Claus is.

The early church

The best source for truth is the bible.

And some of the great witnesses of the early New testament church, were the Apostle Paul, Peter, John, and so forth.

But when Paul was getting closer to the end of his life, he said this:

Act 20:29-31
(29) For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
(30) Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
(31) Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

And in truth, that is exactly what happened, when he got off the scene, it may be that at the beginning it was gradual, but it eventually led to an apostasy within that, or near that era.

So let us look at things of that nature.

And we do not have to go far, we just have to look at the 7 churches of Revelation, which that book, is said to have been written around A.D. 95 or 96, in the time of the emperor Domitian.

Some of the warnings were these:

1. Rev 2:4 “...thou hast left thy first love…”
2. Rev 2:14 “...because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication….” , Rev 2:15 “...So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans…”
3. Rev 2:20 “...I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols….”
4. Rev 3:1 “...I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead….”
5. Rev 3:16 “So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.” , Rev 3:17 “Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing;…”

These were some of the problems that many of the churches were dealing with, in the time of A.D. 95 or 96.

It was not minor problems but big problems.

Now I know this is not on the issue of Christmas, but I am showing things one bit at a time, so people know what happened in the early church, and in my next post of this nature, I will define more some of these problems, and then we can look at the church of the A.D. 100s, A.D. 200’s.

7 churches problems (part 1)

Now of the Seven churches, ones that had a great testimony were the Smyrna church (persecuted church), and the church of Philadelphia (church of brotherly love).

Now in the Thayer Greek definitions, the definitions it gives, concerning Smyrna is the word “myrrh”, and concerning Philadelphia is “brotherly love”.

Now concerning the churches which had problems, here are the words defined by the Thayer Greek dictionary, concerning them.

The church of Ephesus’s defining word is “permitted”, and the church of Pergamos is “height or elevation”, the church of Thyatira is “odour of affliction”, the church of Sardis is ”red ones”, and Laodicea is “justice of the people”.

That is what the Thayer definitions say, though concerning the Laodicea church (which I call “the lukewarm church”), how the word Laodicea came to mean justice “of” the people, I am not sure, but many times, in certain cases, churches took on a resemblance of what the meaning of the places were, and even within some of the things that took place in those places, it seemed to have some influence, in some way, and even in some cases, God may have used things within their culture, so to describe their problems which I will cover one of them, in part 2 of the 7 churches problems, when I mention the Laodicea church.

And in this particular post, we will just cover 2 of the churches with problems.

So now, let us look at the problems.





So those were these churches problems, we will cover the next three, in my next post.

7 churches problems (part 2)

Now here are the other problems of the seven churches:









So these are the rest of the 7 churches problems, and did it spread to the A.D 100’s- A.D. 200’s ???

The church of A.D. 100’s

So did many of the problems of the 7 churches, flow into the A.D. 100’s-200’s ?

Well some of the problems via the 7, were loose living, lukewarmness, thinking riches is godliness, clergy over the laity, mixing paganism with the bible, religious traditions or ritualism.

And here is a comment on this:

(History of the Churches, David W. Cloud, page 20)

(...In the parables of Matthew 13, Christ warned that false churches would increase, and that is exactly what happened after the death of the Apostles.

The corruption that was already prevalent by the end of the apostolic age (Rev. 2-3) spread rapidly. The
churches that resisted the tide of apostasy were comparatively few and those that went along with it many. Thus, within 200 years the situation was already wretched. As one writing in the middle of the second century observed,
“Customs have become worldly; discipline is relaxed; rulers and ruled are all languishing, and many among them are corrupt, covetous, greedy, hypocritical, contentious, slanderers, blasphemers, libertines, spies, renegades, schismatics. Worthy teachers are not wanting, but there are also many false prophets… for whom the greatest thing in life is not the practice
of piety and justice, but the strife for the post of command.”)

We see in this quote very much things via the 7 churches’ problems, spreading via the second century A.D.

And in this post we will show forth, many of the so-called church fathers of back then, and see what was going on, but we will only focus on 1rst century people of the church of back then, or what was called the church.

And I am only covering the 1rst century era, so that this post is not too long, and later will cover the 2nd century.

In this study, we will cover Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Clement of Alexandria, which some also lived within the 2nd century.

And when I cover each of them, I will put quotes side by side to each other in a html table, so to have coo-berating quotes on these individuals.

So let us start:

Ignatius (c. 50-110)


Concerning the quotes we see via Ignatius, we can see that he said we should have elders with “one” ruling bishop over them.

But in the bible, elders and bishops are the same thing, and here is proof:

Tit 1:5-7
(5) For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
(6) If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
(7) For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;

Here it is tying in a bishop and an elder as being the same thing, and all what a bishop is, is an overseer, but not one who is lording it over the flock, but one who rules as a servant, who feeds the flock and cares about the flock, and overseers work with each other and not one ruling over the other.

And Ignatius is the first one known to use the word Catholic, but his motivation behind it was centered around a bishop, that were the bishop shall appear, there is the Catholic church.


Now Catholic means universal, and we can see by Ignatius’ reference that it was not used in a good way, which makes me think of the clergy over the laity, and these things, is what eventually brought about the emergence of the Roman Catholic church, which brought many of the church into this apostasy.

So let us move on to Justin.

Justin Martyr (c. 100-c. 165)


Justin in some manner seemed to have soften pagan ways of philosophy, to somehow blend it into bible teachings, and had mystical teachings and so on.

So now we go to Clement.


Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-c. 230)




He blended some manner of pagan ways with the bible, so there was a lot of Christianizing things.

So that was some of the atmosphere that existed within the A.D. 100’s, and we see a whole lot of the 7 churches problems here.

The church of A.D. 200’s

So now that we have covered the church of A.D. 100’s, let us cover the era of A.D. 200’s.

The ones we will cover are, Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen and Eusebius of Caesarea.

Tertullian (c. 155 – c. 255)



Now there are far more false doctrines than this concerning Tertullian, but this will suffice.

Now were does the church’s authority come from ?

1Co 3:11
(11) For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

And what was the foundation of the Apostles ?

Well the word they preached, which was the gospel, the word of God.

And Paul which was an apostle says this:

Gal 1:8
(8) But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

See even Paul did not make himself the standard.

And we can see all kinds of odd things were believed by Tertullian.

So now let us cover Cyprian.


Cyprian (? – 258)



He did not seem to have a good attitude, and he believed in infant baptism, and I know there is more to him, but I though in the things mentioned that this would be enough in covering Cyprian.

So now unto Origen.


Origen (185-254)



This guy was extremely loaded with false doctrine, more than most.

And there was more I could have mentioned.

He agreed with infant baptism, and so on, and was one of what is called fathers, of the heretical amillennial doctrine, which spiritualizes most things via end times, which is part of Roman Catholic doctrine.

And of course what he says about the Holy Ghost is very odd, and of course is form of purgatory view, and so on.

I could say more, but will leave it at that.

So now let us cover Eusebius.


Eusebius of Caesarea (270-340)



Just the fact that Eusebius promoted Origen’s heresies is enough, but also it looks like in his version of the Greek New Testament, that he made many changes to it, even via Mark 16:9-20, and John 8:1-11, and I know that there are a fair chunk of verses missing in almost all new bible versions.

Hmmmm, it seems fishy that one is called the Vaticanus, and then of course there is the Sinaiticus, and Alexandria Egypt.

So we can see that the A.D. 200’s churches, were full of problems, and were gradually being brought into an apostasy, which eventually formed the Roman Catholic church, and a similar thing is happening through the ecumenical movement today, which is headed by the Catholic church, which they are bringing all religions, to what they call themselves, the mother church.

Gerbolski said:

That bishop of Myra was not a fable, but Santa Claus is.

Click to expand...

Santa Claus

In looking further into the Bishop of Myra, there is debate of whether he existed or not, so who knows if he even existed, but whether he did or not, we know that Santa Claus is a fable, and infact many ideas may have come from way back, which does not seem to be a coincidence, here is info on this:

(The Truth About Christmas - EARLY CHRISTIAN BELIEFS)

(...Santa Claus (Saint Nicholas): Santa was first called Saint Nicholas. Purportedly, there was a man called Saint Nicholas who gave gifts, but the origin of St. Nick and Santa Claus goes back much further in history. The stag was a symbol in dim antiquity of Nimrod. Statues of Baal, found in Nineveh, show the pagan god Baal (the deified Nimrod) with a long beard and carrying a deer. The Baal statues had wings which gave the god the power of flying through the air. The Norse god. “Odin,” was pictured as riding across the sky on an eight legged horse. He was a magician who punished naughty children and rewarded good children with presents. The Norse god, “Thor,” was represented as an elderly man, jovial, with a heavy build and a long white beard. He entered homes through the chimney and into the fire, which was his element and his color red. He drove a chariot, drawn by two goats, Cracker and Nasher. He was known as the “yule god” and dwelt in a palace in the North land, with the ice and snow.

Interestingly, Saint Nicholas’ existence is not attested by any historical document, so nothing certain is known of his life except that he was probably bishop of Myra in the fourth century. The accounts of his life are confused and historically unconfirmed. In 1969 Pope Paul VI officially decreed the feast of Saint Nicholas be removed from the Roman calendar, because of doubt that he ever existed. Refer to: 1999 Encyclopedia Britannica, Microsoft Encarte Encyclopedia 1999, Christmas Almanac, Random House 2004....)

So it is possible, if this bishop of Mira existed, that they built a fable around him, but surely things from ancient traditions were added to him, which pointed to other gods, and were pagan in nature.

Do not give heed to fables.

What does Jesus require of us in thought, word, and deed? How did he say that he wanted to be remembered? What are his instructions to us on how we are to worship him and give him glory and honor? Very simply put, what Jesus wants from us is our all on the alter of sacrifice laid, our hearts under Holy Spirit control, for "we can only be blest, and have peace and sweet rest, when we give him our bodies and souls" (a quote from an old hymn). Jesus said to come after him we must deny self, take up our cross daily (die daily to sin and to self), and follow him (in obedience to his commands) (Luke 9:23-26). This is our spiritual worship of him. And this is what he wants from us in celebration of him, not all the "bells and whistles" and idolatry associated with "Christmas." He wants us dead to sin and walking in obedience to him in holy living. Give him what he wants.

Sue J Love said:

What does Jesus require of us in thought, word, and deed? How did he say that he wanted to be remembered? What are his instructions to us on how we are to worship him and give him glory and honor? Very simply put, what Jesus wants from us is our all on the alter of sacrifice laid, our hearts under Holy Spirit control, for "we can only be blest, and have peace and sweet rest, when we give him our bodies and souls" (a quote from an old hymn). Jesus said to come after him we must deny self, take up our cross daily (die daily to sin and to self), and follow him (in obedience to his commands) (Luke 9:23-26). This is our spiritual worship of him. And this is what he wants from us in celebration of him, not all the "bells and whistles" and idolatry associated with "Christmas." He wants us dead to sin and walking in obedience to him in holy living. Give him what he wants.

Click to expand...

I love that song, I would say probably one of my more favorite ones.

A bigger picture of the early church and compromise


So here is some info from Tertullian via what was happening at that time, which he lived in 155 – 255 A.D.

(The Truth About Christmas - EARLY CHRISTIAN BELIEFS)

(...Tertullian wrote: ‘By us, who are strangers to Sabbaths, and new moons, and festivals, once acceptable to God (under the Law of Moses), the Saturnalia, the feasts of January, the Brumalia, and Matronalia, are now frequented; gifts are carried to and fro, new years day presents are made with din, and sports and banquets are celebrated with uproar; oh, how much more faithful are the heathen to their religion, who take special care to adopt no solemnity from the Christians.…)


We can see that Tertullian spoke of Christians now frequenting all kinds of pagan feasts, which shows evidence that some were being influenced by these things, and this was in the A.D. 200’s.

And Tertullian was having battles with these Bishops of Rome called Callistus and Zephyrinus, some call them popes, but they were not called popes in this time.

And here is some info on this:



So we can see that in varying different ways, Hyppolytus which was a follower of what they call the Novation schism, later reconciled with what was called the church.

But in saying this Hyppolytus and Tertullian seemed to be enemies of Callistus.

But all of them (Hyppolytus, Tertullian, Callistus, Zephyrius) had some heretical teachings.

And even though Hyppolitus may have mentioned many things about the trinity, he seemed to more have a binary view rather than a trinity view:

“He did not say, “I and the Father am one, but are one.” For the word are is not said of one person, but it refers to two persons, and one power…(Hippolytus. Against Noetus: Against the Heresy of One Noetus, Chapter 7. from The Extant Works and Fragments of Hippolytus: Dogmatical and Historical. Roberts-Donaldson English Translators. Copyright © 2001 Peter Kirby) “


Now with all this said, we can see that some Christians or so called in some cases, were being influenced by pagan festivals, and even many followers of Callistus and Zephyrius, were celebrating saturnalia, and this in the very early 200”s A.D.

So were there pagan influences among the church of that day, absolutely yes.

And later I will get more into various things people say via this one said that, and that one said this.

Pagan feasts and December 25th

Now before I get into stuff, that concerns quotes by Theophilus Bishop of Caesarea, Hippolytus, Theophilus of Antioch, and this Sextus Julius Africanus, I first want to establish things, that people say about the December 25th feasts.

Some say that the first December 25th pagan feast was the feast of Sol Invictus.

And concerning these issues, I am going to quote things from various sources, there is one source that is not a ministry that I would support in a general bible way because of the Hebrews roots movement, which I am not for, but in regards to history regarding this issue and others, he really digs deep, but I will corroborate some of these quotes, with other sources, so to show that it is not isolated.

There are some things were you can glean some truths from, though in truth most websites even with history, you would have to glean from.

And right now we will get to info on these things.

Now concerning pagan feasts, at the time of the winter solstice, there were many, such as Brumalia, Saturnalia, Sol Invictus, Mithra, and even in Egypt, such as Rae, and there were others, and the church of that day was in various places, including Africa, which Egypt is in Africa.

And concerning the winter solstice, in various articles I have looked into, there was a specific winter solstice day, but also mutliple days of celebration via the soltice.

Concerning Brumalia, gods like Bacchus and Ceres were honoured and Brumalia comes from the Latin word for winter solstice.

Now here is some info, on things that concerns this stuff, which we will cover things concerning Pliny the Elder, which was born around 23 or 24 A.D. and died around 79 A.D.:



So here is proof even before we get to the 2nd and 3rd century church, that there was a type of false god celebration, (which this spoke of brumalia) on December 25<u><strong>th</strong></u>, which in one of these articles, it explains well, the change of the calendar, which we know there has been changes.

And there has been sun god worship for thousands of years, via winter solstice, and here is info on that:

(December 25th on trial, Passion for truth)

(...But probably the most famous structure in
world history that deals with the winter solstice, and that is completely
connected to a sun god, is the Egyptian sun god, Amen Ra.

This almost 4,000-year-old temple in Egypt was built in such a way that only on
one single day a year, the winter solstice, the light comes through a single
window and shines in the Holy of Holies onto his face. The fact that the ancient
Egyptians built their sun god's temple to harness the sun of the winter solstice,
because they believed this was the day their sun god was reborn, connects the
winter solstice as an existing day of worship to a solar deity….

...The ancients called it the day when the sun was reborn. This is why the birthdays of
sun gods were celebrated on this day—it symbolized the sun’s rebirth as it
began to overpower the night.

We see the winter solstice being used to worship sun gods throughout time and
across nearly every continent….)


There has been sun god worship throughout every continent for thousands of years, and in Egypt there is a 4000 year old temple dedicated to the sun god Ra.

So 4000 years ago there was already sun god worship, which makes me think of Nimrod, and Nimrod is said to have lived approximately 4100 years to about 4500 years ago, give or take.

And before people were separated with various different languages, from the one known language at the time, Nimrod did form a religion with Semiramis which some may call her by a different name, which in their religion they had a sun god, and once the languages were separated, they no longer understood each other, so people of various languages brought that religion in various parts of the world, thus naming sun god names by different names, that is why we see so many similarities in the ancient pagan religions, because it stems for one source, but gradually some put their own spin to it, and may have created other gods.

The bible even mentions one of the names that Semiramis went by, in forming herself as a goddess, which was this:

1Ki 11:5
(5) For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.

Ashtoreth is one of the names she went by, and also the bible mentions Tammuz:

Eze 8:14
(14) Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the LORD'S house which was toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz.

And these things came from somewhere obviously, and when the bible says something existed, it always tells the truth, and how many things have been found in archaeology, but later been destroyed? And how many articles have been burnt in the pass, for we see a lot of that happening in the history of the Catholic church, of burning books and so on, and how many things have yet to be discovered ?

Well that is another question, because they are discovering things concerning the bible and history all the time.

And that religion of Babylon spread all over.

So now let us get back to our main subject.

Now here is more info on this god called Harpocrates from a Greek temple priest called Plutarch, which lived in 40 A.D. to 120 A.D. :


(December 25th on trial, Passion for truth)

(…Now, let's go over to a Greek philosopher, Plutarch, who lived
in the first century, and let him tell us why they built his temple around the
winter solstice. He says, and I quote, "For this reason it is said that the goddess
Isis, when she was aware of her being pregnant, put on a protective amulet on
the sixth day of Phaophi, and on the winter solstice, she gave birth to
Harpocrates."

Now, Harpocrates was the sun god Horus as a child; it literally means ‘the Child
Horus.’ Horus was the sun god of Egypt, and Plutarch is reporting that he was
born on a winter solstice. So, not only does Plutarch tell us that the sun god of
Egypt was born on the winter solstice, but he does so long before a single
Catholic writer ever decided to figure out what the birthday of Christ was….)


Plutarch lived at at time, were Jesus and Paul would have lived, and he mentions the birth of a sun god on winter solstice.

Now I have heard that there might be other sources via like info, but we have enough to show that the winter solstice had a connection to various December days at different times, but also in a big way December 25th, and the Egyptian calendar is older than the Roman calendar, so in times past many changes took place, even in the old Roman calendar, so how much did this throw things off? Who knows, but dates via December 25th or around that time, seem to remain consistent in one form or another.

Now concerning the Sol Invictus celebration of Aurelian in A.D. 274, it was proclaimed at that time, but seemed to be more put together and consolidated in the 300’s.

And here is a bit of info on that:

(December 25th on trial, Passion for truth)

(...Speaking of the 300s, let's take a look at the next exhibit, which is none other
than a Roman calendar from 354 A.D. that literally states December 25th was
the birthday of the Roman sun god. This calendar was created by a calligrapher
named Philocalus for a wealthy Christian named Valentinas. In part six of this
calendar, it actually lists December 25th as a pagan Roman holiday. Here's the
exact entry: it says, quote, "'Birthday of The Unconquered,' games ordered, 30
races." Now, this is the oldest literary reference to a pagan feast of Sol Invictus,
the sun god of Rome, that we have…

..We know that Roman Christians were celebrating December 25th as the
birthday of Christ at this time because, ironically, on this very same calendar
from 354 A.D., December 25th is also mentioned as the birthday of Christ….)

Now this quote is specifically in regards to Aurelian’s Sol Invictus celebration, it had nothing to do with Brumelia, or Horus, but just Aurelian’s specific Sol Invictus celebration, and what I gather, in reading many articles, is that he wanted to consolidate, all the various pagan feasts into one, which was Sol Invictus.

Now apparently there was another Latin Sol god, before this time, which we have coins of the Sol god in the 1st , 2nd, and 3rd centuries, but as this Sol Invictus, it seems that Aurelian wanted to revive this, and consolidate things under his Sol Invictus.

But nevertheless, regardless to this, we see through Pliny the elder, and Plutarch, which were pretty much before the time of Theophilus Bishop of Caesarea, Hippolytus, Theophilus of Antioch, and this Sextus Julius Africanus, that there was a December 25th celebration of one god or another, even some type of birth.

Epiphany

What was this celebration of Epiphany ?

Well first of all, the meaning of the word epiphany is “manifestation or appearance ”.

But what was Epiphany called at first ?

Before Epiphany was called epiphany, it was called Theophany.

The word Theophony means this “A manifestation of a deity to a man “.

Now who were the first ones to observe this feast ?

(Encyclopedia Britannica, 1960)

(...Clement of Alexandria first mentions it. Writing c. 194 he states that the Basilidians feasted the day of the Baptism, devoting the whole night which preceded it to lections of the scriptures.

They fixed it in the 15th year of Tiberius, on the 15th or 11th of the month Tobi, dates of the Egyptian fixed calendar equivalent to January 10and 6. When Clement wrote the great church had not adopted it, but toward A.D. 300 it was widely in vogue….)


So the first mention of a group that celebrated what is now called epiphany, were the Basilidians.

Who were the Basilidians ?

(Basilideans Explained)

(..The Basilidians or Basilideans were a Gnostic sect founded by Basilides of Alexandria in the 2nd century. Basilides claimed to have been taught his doctrines by Glaucus, a disciple of St. Peter, though others stated he was a disciple of the Simonian Menander.








(The Truth About Christmas - EARLY CHRISTIAN BELIEFS)

(...Tertullian wrote: ‘By us, who are strangers to Sabbaths, and new moons, and festivals, once acceptable to God (under the Law of Moses), the Saturnalia, the feasts of January, the Brumalia, and Matronalia, are now frequented; gifts are carried to and fro, new years day presents are made with din, and sports and banquets are celebrated with uproar; oh, how much more faithful are the heathen to their religion, who take special care to adopt no solemnity from the Christians.…)

Was also from Africa, and he mentions Christians compromising with pagan feasts.

Could because of the compromise of some, even many, that it pressured others, to Christianize a pagan feast, so that Christian themes appear, rather than pagan?

Well it sure looks like it, and we have evidence of compromise.

And here is more info on the Basilidians:






So the Basilidians seemed to have survived within the end of the 4th century, though other Gnostic groups may have been influence by them.

It is said that by the 5th century, most Gnostic sects had faded, but some beliefs and practices continued to influence certain groups, indicating that remnants of Gnosticism persisted beyond this period.

And then there was the Donatus December 25th controversy vs the January 6th date for the birth of Jesus, which the Donatus were also from Africa, which many things seemed to take place there.

And this controversy took place in the 4th century.

And mainly the east accepted the January 6th date, and a main part of the west accepted the December 25th date.

And in my next post I will get to the Donatus issue.


So that is stuff on the feast of Epiphany.

I will mention my next post soon enough, but man there is a lot of deception online.

Donatus stuff, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, and Sextus Julius Africanus


Now in this post, I will cover things which is mentioned in the title up above.

You can know by reading stuff on history, that there was this schism, that happened towards the Donatus which received a date of December 25, and others who received a January 6th date via the birth of Christ.

What was it all about, and why were the Donatus so against it ?

But before we get to the Donatus issue, I just want to cover things that is supposed to have been said through Hippolytus, this Sextus Julius Africanus, and Clement, but as concerns Theophilus Bishop of Caesarea, and this Theophilus of Antioch I will not cover them in this post, for I still have to do more research on them.

And regardless of what is said through these men, there is already evidence of pagan days celebrated before the second century, and for thousands of years.




Pliny the elder lived before the time of these men, and he shows evidence of a god being celebrated on December 25th, and even in Egypt for thousands of years a god birth was celebrated on winter solstice, which through calendars it did match up with December 25th at some point, but the change of calendar changed some things.

The winter solstice did have a December 25th connection, although it seemed to connect with other days within that vicinity as well, because of some celebrations of many days.

So now we get to, what did Hippolytus, Sextus Julius Africanus, and Clement actually say ?

One thing is known, is that in the early church, there was much interest in dating Christ’s birth.


Clement of Alexandria, (c.150 – c.230)


(History of the Churches, David W. Cloud, page 35)

(1. Clement headed the allegorizing school of Alexandria from 190 to 202. This school was founded by Pantaenus.
2. Clement intermingled the philosophy of Plato with Christianity.
3. He helped develop the doctrine of purgatory and believed that most men would eventually be saved.)

Concerning Clement, even though he stood on certain principles, he was also a very compromised person, which we can see huge false doctrine here.

And via what he said, concerning the dating of Christ’s birth, he actually said a few things, and here are some articles.


(How December 25 Became Christmas)

(...Finally, in about 200 C.E., a Christian teacher in Egypt makes reference to the date Jesus was born. According to Clement of Alexandria, several different days had been proposed by various Christian groups. Surprising as it may seem, Clement doesn’t mention December 25 at all. Clement writes: “There are those who have determined not only the year of our Lord’s birth, but also the day; and they say that it took place in the 28th year of Augustus, and in the 25th day of [the Egyptian month] Pachon [May 20 in our calendar] … And treating of His Passion, with very great accuracy, some say that it took place in the 16th year of Tiberius, on the 25th of Phamenoth [March 21]; and others on the 25th of Pharmuthi [April 21] and others say that on the 19th of Pharmuthi [April 15] the Savior suffered. Further, others say that He was born on the 24th or 25th of Pharmuthi [April 20 or 21].”2
Clearly there was great uncertainty, but also a considerable amount of interest, in dating Jesus' birth in the late second century….)


(SOME DATES IN THE LIFE OF JESUS CHRIST)

(..CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA Stromateis (ca. 194 A.D.) states that, from the birth of Christ to the death of Commodus (December 30/January 1, 192/3) there were 194 years, one month, and 13 days. This can in no way accord with the idea of December 25 as the birthday of Christ. Clement seems to believe that JC was born on 18 NOVEMBER, 3 B.C. …)


(December 25th on trial, Passion for truth)

(...Historian Clement Miles explained in this in his classic 1912 work, Christmas Customs and Traditions. He said this: “There is not a single month in the year to which the Nativity has not been assigned by some writer or another. The December 25th is only one of various guesses of early Christian writers.” St. Clement himself, who lived at the end of the second century, believed that Christ was born on November 17. This means by the end of the second century, the date had not even been set….)


In the declarations of Clement, he is not talking at all about a birth celebration, but rather to people who had interest in dating Jesus’ birth, and many dates were given, but concerning him, he gave the date of November 17th or 18th.

I have read many articles that talk about Clement, and his dating, and the one that seems to be more reliable to me, is the November date, in what he says, because of the details that he gives.


So there is nothing remotely mentioned here concerning December 25th, though later ones do mention it.

Now let us cover our next person.


Hippolytus, (c. 170 – c. 235)


Now before I mention a comment on Hippolytus with the supposed December 25th saying, which there will be a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia; I just want to mention something, is that I have read of many, and I mean many Catholic apologists who support this claim of Hyppolitus mentioning a December 25th association of Christ’s birth.


Now let us get to the comments:

(December 25th on trial, Passion for truth)

(...One of the most popular early writers or chronographers that came up with the December 25 date is apparently someone named Hippolitus of Rome in the third century. His entire chronography timeline was not only debunked within a decade of releasing it, but there is evidence that it is not even credible.

Let’s take a look at that quote, and you’ll see exactly what I’m talking about.

Quote: “For the first advent of our Lord in the flesh, when he was born in Bethlehem, eight days before the kalends of January, the fourth day of the week, while Augustus was in his 42 year, but from Adam five-thousand, five hundred years.”
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, they say this quote is not even authentic.

First of all, you can see that he has 5,500 years being completed up until the time of Christ when he should have had only 4,000.
Second, the Catholic encyclopedia says this quote is not even authentic.

They say, quote: “ The relevant passage, which exists in the Chigi manuscript without the bracketed words, says this and every time it is quoted prior to circa 1000 A.D. “)

In other words, the original quote is the following: “For the first coming of our Lord in the flesh in Bethlehem took place in the reign of Augustus, in the year 5500. And he suffered in his thirty-third year.”
Everything you see in brackets is not in the original. This means we have to throw out Hippolytus---it’s not even genuine. At the very least, it’s extraordinarily questionable.
The Catholic Encyclopedia goes on to say, “interpolation is certain and admitted by scholars Funk and Bonwetsch.”...)


Wow, so it seems that the so-called December quote of Hippolytus is not even genuine, and even in the calculation, it does not make any sense, for the quotation puts 5,500 years from Adam to Jesus, which that is impossible, it would only be 4,000 years give or take, between that time, and close to 6,000 today from Adam to now, so it would be an extremely out of whack calculation if it were true, extremely dishonest, adding almost 1000 years extra from Adam to Jesus, and the bible gives chronology.

So now let us cover our next guy.


Sextus Julius Africanus, (c.160–c.240)


(December 25th on trial, Passion for truth)

(...The next quote we have...is Julius Sextus Africanus. All over the internet, he’s quoted as stating that December 25th is the birthdate of Christ, yet virtually no one actually states his exact quote. After extensive research, I finally found the actual quote in question and was shocked by what he actually said.

Here is the quote: “Judea has seen its bloom and the country is fading. To gentiles and aliens, salvation has come:; to the wretched, relief is ministered abundantly. With right do women dance and say, Lady Pege, Spring-bearer, thou mother of the Heavenly constellation.”

Now, friends, this is where they say Julius Sextus Africanus claimed that Jesus was born on December 25th. But where is that? It’s not actually there because he never said it.
You have to do some extreme gymnastics with the words, which is exactly what they did.

Here’s how they did it.

First they start with the understanding that the ancients believed that the Earth was born on March 25, the spring equinox, and that great men are born and die on the same day.
So, because they believe that Christ died on March 25th, being being a great man, he must have been born on that date as well. And because Africanus uses the word “spring-bearer,” that somehow means Julius believes that Christ must have been born in the spring.

The problem is they didn’t even stick to the superstitious formula that great men were born and died on the same day—they changed it to Christ died and was conceived on the same day. And of course , if you go nine months from March 25, you end up on December 25.

The truth is that not only is all of that based on superstition and manipulation of a formula, but it’s also not even what he said or meant. In context, if you keep reading, he’s talking about water; he’s referring to a spring of water, not the season of spring. The actual Greek bears that out because Lady Pege is simply a personification of the Greek word pege, which simply means “the well fed by a spring.” He’s basically saying that Mary, The Mother of Christ, has a wealth of water inside her that’s fed by Christ himself. He’s the water; he’s the spring….)


It seems that a lot of manipulation happened in making this quote say something it did not, and making it fit with December 25th, whoever it was that actually knew this saying, and twisted it to fit December 25th, was no doubt a manipulator of truth, so that this person’s agenda would be at the forefront.

So in regards to Africanus, he did not say it, but said something else completely different, although one of his statements I do find strange is about the lady Pege being the mother of the Heavenly constellation, which we know that Mary, which may be intended, did not create the constellations, but God did.

So Africanus’ actual saying, is manipulated, and Hippolytus’ supposed saying seems to be not even credible to begin with, and if it was, it was a far stretch in calculation, adding at least 1000 years to the years, which is very dishonest, and surely they knew bible chronology.


Now that we covered Clement, Africanus, and Hippolytus, let us go to a comment about the early church:


(How December 25 Became Christmas)

(...The Bible offers few clues: Celebrations of Jesus’ Nativity are not mentioned in the Gospels or Acts; the date is not given, not even the time of year….

...The extrabiblical evidence from the first and second century is equally spare: There is no mention of birth celebrations in the writings of early Christian writers such as Irenaeus (c. 130–200) or Tertullian (c. 160–225). Origen of Alexandria (c. 165–264) goes so far as to mock Roman celebrations of birth anniversaries, dismissing them as “pagan” practices—a strong indication that Jesus’ birth was not marked with similar festivities at that place and time.1 As far as we can tell, Christmas was not celebrated at all at this point….)


So there is no real evidence at all of a celebration of Jesus’ birth at this time.

But there is some type of one, mentioned in later ages.

And right now I will cover stuff concerning December 25th celebrations, and the Donatists.

(How December 25 Became Christmas)

(...By the fourth century, however, we find references to two dates that were widely recognized—and now also celebrated—as Jesus’ birthday: December 25 in the western Roman Empire and January 6 in the East (especially in Egypt and Asia Minor)….

...The earliest mention of December 25 as Jesus’ birthday comes from a mid-fourth-century Roman almanac that lists the death dates of various Christian bishops and martyrs. The first date listed, December 25, is marked: natus Christus in Betleem Judeae: “Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea.”3 In about 400 C.E., Augustine of Hippo mentions a local dissident Christian group, the Donatists, who apparently kept Christmas festivals on December 25, but refused to celebrate the Epiphany on January 6, regarding it as an innovation.)


(December 25th on trial, Passion for truth)

(...Speaking of the 300s, let's take a look at the next exhibit, which is none other
than a Roman calendar from 354 A.D. that literally states December 25th was
the birthday of the Roman sun god. This calendar was created by a calligrapher
named Philocalus for a wealthy Christian named Valentinas. In part six of this
calendar, it actually lists December 25th as a pagan Roman holiday. Here's the
exact entry: it says, quote, "'Birthday of The Unconquered,' games ordered, 30
races." Now, this is the oldest literary reference to a pagan feast of Sol Invictus,
the sun god of Rome, that we have…

..We know that Roman Christians were celebrating December 25th as the
birthday of Christ at this time because, ironically, on this very same calendar
from 354 A.D., December 25th is also mentioned as the birthday of Christ. We
know that they didn't celebrate it in the third century on December 25th,
because Dr. Steven Heijmans tells us that in The De Pascha Computus, written
in 243 A.D. to determine the date of Easter, they argued that Christ, the new
Sun of Righteousness, must have been born on March 28th.…)

So it seems that the very first mention of December 25th as an official celebration of Jesus’ birth was in 354 A.D. .

And concerning the Donatists, Augustine mentioned that group near 400 A.D., as a group that celebrated December 25th.

But who founded the Donatists ?

It was Donatus Magnus, that was the founder, which lived from 270 A.D. to 355 A.D.

And in order for the Donatist group to have celebrated December 25th, as Jesus’ birth it is said, they first had to exist and grow, so they had to have been formed near the beginning of the 300’s, which tells us that the December celebration would be somewhere in between 300 A.D. To 354 A.D. or maybe closer to the time of 354 A.D.

Now Augustine only mentions the Donatist schism near 400 A.D., so by these things we can know that the Donatists could not have celebrated December 25th in the 200’s because they never even existed back then.

So were does this celebration come from ? Well it seems to have appeared somewhere in the 300’s, which is officially mentioned in 354 A.D.

Now I will get more into this Donatist stuff, and dating the birth of Jesus, and things concerning the 2 Theophilus’, Augustine, this guy Chrysotom, and Jerome, in another post.

So what I wrote in this post, are things to really ponder upon.