Shake the anti-holiday crowd's tree and you will find Alexander Hislop and his book "Two Babylons" somewhere.
I recommend reading the book "Christmas Reconsidered", "Easter - Is it Pagan?", and "The Babylon Connection?" by Ralph Woodrow in regards to this. Also, "Three Days and Three Nights" is a good one in this regard.
Ralph Woodrow bought into all the anti-holiday stuff earlier in his ministry. Someone informed him about Alexander Hislop's poor reasoning skills and challenged his thinking. Ralph realized he was in error about the vast majority of anti-holiday teachings that he had perpetuated and wrote the above books to recant his former positions.
His writings have been used by Armstrongites through the years to bolster their anti-holiday teachings. If you are not familiar with Armstrongites, their teachings originate with the heretic Herbert Armstrong. There are a few Armstrongites on this forum who spread some of his teachings, so beware of them. Armstrongite organizations include Restored Church of God (David Pack), Philadelphia Church of God (Gerald Flurry), United Church of God, and Living Church of God.
These groups teach heretical doctrines such as claiming they will be fully god in the resurrection (like God the Father and Jesus Christ), denial of the Trinity, and denial of justification by faith alone. They teach that Christianity is a false faith and that they represent the true faith. Christians are considered to be teaching a false gospel, and believing in a false Christ. Armstrongites think that everyone else other than themselves are blinded spiritually, and that Armstrongites will rule over them in the Millennial reign of Jesus Christ.
I belonged to the Armstrongites for a decade as the son of an Armstrongite parent.
Anyways, if you are really concerned about the origins of Christmas and Easter, I'd highly suggest reading these books. While the anti-holiday teachings may have a grain of truth to them, there is a ton of distortion in their teachings, and a lot of the distortions are a direct result of Alexander Hislop and his slanders.
Hislop basically wrote his book to discredit the Roman Catholic church by attempting to relate it to the worship of Nimrod and his wife Semiramis, and their child Tammuz. The big issue with this thesis is that Nimrod and Semiramis likely lived in two different centuries. Therefore, how could they be husband and wife? Additionally, Hislop's description of Nimrod was blatantly racist, claiming he was a black hunch backed man.
Also, he used poor logic to connect one pagan god to another and then to Nimrod.
The logic was similar to this:
Robert wears a black shirt and blue jeans.
Bill wears a black shirt and khakis.
Jim wears a blue shirt and khakis.
Therefore, Robert is Jim.
So, Hislop uses similar logic to associate pagan gods across multiple cultures with Nimrod and Semiramis.
Another example is those who claim that Lent is a modern adaptation of "weeping for Tammuz". "Weeping for Tammuz" was an observance that happened in late summer, though, and cannot be associated with Lent, which occurs in early spring.
Those who teach such things may claim they never even heard of Hislop, but the origin can ultimately be traced back to him. Multiple "teachers" in the church have been affected by Hislop through the writings of Herbert Armstrong or Ralph Woodrow.
By the way, I won't take the time to argue with Armstrongites or Hebrew Roots Movement types (some of whom are affected by Armstrongites because some of the founders were former Armstrongites) who will challenge this post. Look up the facts for yourself if you care enough to. If not, believe their stuff. It's your life not mine. I dwelt in ignorance for a decade and believed National Enquirer - like cultic materials.
Have a merry Christmas
P.S. I am not Roman Catholic, and I attend a church affiliated with Evangelical Free Church of America. I do not promote Roman Catholicism, but nor do I slander them with juvenile propaganda like Hislop's writings or Armstrongite publications. My issues with them relate to justification by faith alone and sola Scriptura. I don't condescend to the level of National Enquirer ad hominem attacks but focus on core doctrinal issues in discussions I might have with a Roman Catholic. RLS.
I recommend reading the book "Christmas Reconsidered", "Easter - Is it Pagan?", and "The Babylon Connection?" by Ralph Woodrow in regards to this. Also, "Three Days and Three Nights" is a good one in this regard.
Ralph Woodrow bought into all the anti-holiday stuff earlier in his ministry. Someone informed him about Alexander Hislop's poor reasoning skills and challenged his thinking. Ralph realized he was in error about the vast majority of anti-holiday teachings that he had perpetuated and wrote the above books to recant his former positions.
His writings have been used by Armstrongites through the years to bolster their anti-holiday teachings. If you are not familiar with Armstrongites, their teachings originate with the heretic Herbert Armstrong. There are a few Armstrongites on this forum who spread some of his teachings, so beware of them. Armstrongite organizations include Restored Church of God (David Pack), Philadelphia Church of God (Gerald Flurry), United Church of God, and Living Church of God.
These groups teach heretical doctrines such as claiming they will be fully god in the resurrection (like God the Father and Jesus Christ), denial of the Trinity, and denial of justification by faith alone. They teach that Christianity is a false faith and that they represent the true faith. Christians are considered to be teaching a false gospel, and believing in a false Christ. Armstrongites think that everyone else other than themselves are blinded spiritually, and that Armstrongites will rule over them in the Millennial reign of Jesus Christ.
I belonged to the Armstrongites for a decade as the son of an Armstrongite parent.
Anyways, if you are really concerned about the origins of Christmas and Easter, I'd highly suggest reading these books. While the anti-holiday teachings may have a grain of truth to them, there is a ton of distortion in their teachings, and a lot of the distortions are a direct result of Alexander Hislop and his slanders.
Hislop basically wrote his book to discredit the Roman Catholic church by attempting to relate it to the worship of Nimrod and his wife Semiramis, and their child Tammuz. The big issue with this thesis is that Nimrod and Semiramis likely lived in two different centuries. Therefore, how could they be husband and wife? Additionally, Hislop's description of Nimrod was blatantly racist, claiming he was a black hunch backed man.
Also, he used poor logic to connect one pagan god to another and then to Nimrod.
The logic was similar to this:
Robert wears a black shirt and blue jeans.
Bill wears a black shirt and khakis.
Jim wears a blue shirt and khakis.
Therefore, Robert is Jim.
So, Hislop uses similar logic to associate pagan gods across multiple cultures with Nimrod and Semiramis.
Another example is those who claim that Lent is a modern adaptation of "weeping for Tammuz". "Weeping for Tammuz" was an observance that happened in late summer, though, and cannot be associated with Lent, which occurs in early spring.
Those who teach such things may claim they never even heard of Hislop, but the origin can ultimately be traced back to him. Multiple "teachers" in the church have been affected by Hislop through the writings of Herbert Armstrong or Ralph Woodrow.
By the way, I won't take the time to argue with Armstrongites or Hebrew Roots Movement types (some of whom are affected by Armstrongites because some of the founders were former Armstrongites) who will challenge this post. Look up the facts for yourself if you care enough to. If not, believe their stuff. It's your life not mine. I dwelt in ignorance for a decade and believed National Enquirer - like cultic materials.
Have a merry Christmas
P.S. I am not Roman Catholic, and I attend a church affiliated with Evangelical Free Church of America. I do not promote Roman Catholicism, but nor do I slander them with juvenile propaganda like Hislop's writings or Armstrongite publications. My issues with them relate to justification by faith alone and sola Scriptura. I don't condescend to the level of National Enquirer ad hominem attacks but focus on core doctrinal issues in discussions I might have with a Roman Catholic. RLS.
Last edited: