THE CHRISTMAS LIE: It's Bigger Than You Think





"Christmas" is a good time to spread the "gospel"?  There is unfortunately, more truth in that claim than most people realize. In fact, in an etymological sense, it is very literally true.  "Christmas" is a "good time" to "spread" the "GESPELIA" (Meaning "the substitute")

But it is a very bad time to try and spread the "Euangelion", or good news. It is much more suited (and actually designed) to spread the "Gespelia" (the substitute) for the "Euangelion", since that is what the entire Roman solstice ritual is about to begin with. It is a ritualistic "Gespelia".(Substitution), and it is more than ironic that the very meaning of the words being used to justify it as "Christian" refer to "occultism", "Spells" and "Substitution". What are the odds, this would randomly be the case?

Once you actually study the history of the "Solar-Mass" libation ritual, and see it's condemnation in numerous texts in the New Testament, you come to the unavoidable conclusion, that the "ministers" (and especially the "evangelists") promoting this are either unbelievably "ignorant" of real Christianity, or they are massively deceitful. But there is no third option. Stupidity on a massive scale, or brazen deception, are all you have to choose from.

Stupidity on a massive scale is a very credible option in many cases, when you look at the nations "Television evangelists". It is not hard to "imagine" that these men are wickedly "ignorant". But such a situation would not be because of a "lack of information", which is readily available to all. It would not be because they do not KNOW any better. It would be because they do not CARE any better. It is "ignore-ance". It is the act of "ignoring" the truth. Thus rending them, "Ignore-ant". The primary offense being "to IGNORE", what they should be, paying attention to.

To "real evangelists", they consider the "Euangelion" or "Evangel" to literally be the most important thing on the planet. It goes with the territory. It is the difference between an eternity in "Heaven" or "Hell". Nothing gets more extreme than that.

It is a psychological fact, that when a person, or a profession, or a society, places a great deal of importance on something, they get very very very accurate and specific with what they mean. You can observe this with things like "brain surgery" and "Neurosurgeons". Or "Aerospace Engineering" and "Rocket Scientists". These professions place a great deal of importance on the "accuracy and truthfulness" of what they "do and say". (Because it is "important to them")

"Christmas evangelists" however, not so much. Anything will do. As long as it "sounds" like something "similar", that's "good enough". Because they DO NOT CARE ANY BETTER. Not because, they do not KNOW any better. Because, what you are SEEING is an ACT. An "Hypocrisy".





As you saw in the section, THE CHRISTMAS CHRIST, the "Christ" that is being promoted through Christmas ritual is actually what the New Testament described as APOLLYON, the "Sun-god" of the Roman Empire. It is not the "Christ" of the New Testament, who was neither born then, nor ever taught his disciples to do such "rituals".

And as you saw in THE CHRISTMAS CHURCH, this deity is actually known to be, and worshiped as "LUCIFER".  And that is why it is "surrounded" with Nikes, and symbolized in THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE.

But now we come to the "Gospel" or "Gespelia" of "Christmas". The "substitute" message. Obviously, if you have a "substitute Christ", you will have a "substitute Message", or a "substitute for the Biblical Euangelion".  And once again, you will see how truly "bad" this all gets.

It is very easy to "pick on" the "Pedophile" Christmas evangelists and ministers, or the obscene "Greed" and hypocrisy, they flaunt, showing their direct connection to New Testament "Nicolaitanism". There are many many instances of this, that could be shown here. That is "low hanging fruit". 

But to "illustrate" what is happening, the best example, is the best example. And the very best example, the almost universally accepted example, is the Godfather of the Christmas Christ, Television Evangelism, itself.. Billy Graham. No one says anything bad about "Billy Graham". He was the very "embodiment" of "Evangelical Evangelism" in America. And he is the "shining star" at the top of the "tree" of "Christmas Christianity".  "Millions" of people were "saved" at his rallies, and they will become very emotional and very angry, if you examine, speculate or question this "icon". Their very "salvation" (in their minds) rests on the "integrity" of this one man. And he was the most famous Alumni of "Wheaton College". A very renown "Evangelical" college in Illinois.

"The family of Wheaton College alumni includes many famous names, but none more so than Billy Graham. His lifetime of preaching the Gospel took him to every corner of the world," says Wheaton College President Dr. Philip Ryken '88. "Yet despite his global influence, he never lost his humble dependence on God or simple love for Jesus Christ. We here at Wheaton will dearly miss the loving support, generous encouragement, and Christ-centered dedication he modeled for all of us."


He was also the "founder" of "Christianity Today" magazine.

But the truth is, he was one of the main "corrupters" of Biblical Christianity, in America. And the "gospel" he was "preaching", was "another gospel". It was a "Gespelia" (a substitute). And it was directly connected to spreading his "Christmas Christ", "Luciferian Enlightenment" without "informed consent" (i.e., by Deceit) . Not "Christ".

And the great tragedy of "Billy Graham", is that millions of people, who "put their faith" in his "Christmas Christ", will have died, without ever truly knowing the real New Testament "Christ", at all.


The oddity of having "Evangelical" Christmas clergy, publicly sport Masonic hand signs, and then simultaneously distancing themselves from the actual organization and ideology when "called out" for it, is a continually re-occurring drama.  Obviously, these men are trying to "play both sides of the fence", even if you take them at their word that they had no affiliation.

But when you understand that the "Christmas Christ" is the Mason's "Lucifer", which they do in fact spread the worship of, without "informed consent", then you realize why the "hand signs" are being publicly "offered" to them. They are "kindred spirits" and "brothers in arms". Whether their "membership" is "official" or simply "sympathetic".  And that "sympathy" is being "conveyed" publicly, with those intentionally imitated "hand signs". In other words, "I'm a LUCIFERIAN too".

Both "Billy Graham" and "Pat Robertson" famously used "Masonic" hand signs in publicly visible events and photo shoots. Their "hand signs" were of the variety, which could not be simply "mistaken", or "accidental".

Both "Billy Graham" and "Pat Robertson" were perfectly familiar with what every generally educated Christian American in the United States knows about the "Masons". It is no "secret" that they worship "Lucifer" as their "god". It is proclaimed openly and publicly by their members, that this is the case, while at the same time claiming they are not "religious". That is "standard fare" for Masonic "double-talk" and mumbo-jumbo.

Many Christians, who truly did become "born-again" and subsequently left the "Masons", gave their "testimonies" to that effect, despite the death "oaths" and subsequent death "threats", they received.

The history between Christians and Masons, in America, go all the way back to John Adams, who first opposed them, at the founding of the country.  Their "secrets" have not been actually "secret", for a very long time now. And, their blanket "denials" have always been the same as well. (Nothing new there)

That is why "Christmas" clergy have long wanted the "comradery" of their fellow "Luciferians", without the direct "association", that direct membership in the organization would create. It is called being a "two-faced" hypocrite. And while these "Christmas" ministers, like "Pat Robertson" and "Billy Graham" hide any "associations" they have with the "Masons", researchers have long documented their "collaboration", direct and even symbolic communications.  The "bridge", is clearly a public one.




For "decades", Billy Graham worked as an active "counter-reformationist" among American Evangelicals. One of his more famous efforts was removing from publication information concerning the Jesuits and the Church of Rome, from a widely used Bible study reference, known as the "Haley's Bible Handbook". 

“Not only does Graham not attack the falseness in the Catholic Church, but he even protects the wrong. For instance . . . around 1961, Billy Graham bought the rights to Halley’s Pocket Bible Handbook. The original Halley’s up until the 22nd Edition (1959), warned about the Jesuits. There are chapters about the Roman Papacy, and the Jesuits. According to Mrs Halley, Mr Halley spent years working on those chapters and never would have permitted the book to be changed. However when he died, Billy Graham bought the rights, and REMOVED all the research and warning about the Jesuits in the editions Billy Graham printed.”

- Billy Graham and His Friends, 2001, by Cathy Burns , Sharing Pub.

What many people are not aware of, is that Billy Graham had been "chosen" by the "counter-reformationist" movement, from the beginning of his "ministry", to become a "tool" for "converting America" into the worship of "Lucifer".

The newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst (Hearst was a Roman Catholic), instructed his editors to “puff Graham” by covering his crusade favorably and often. Graham made banner headlines and soon landed on the cover of Time magazine. The popularity of his Los Angeles crusade and the positive media treatment propelled him into the American mainstream.
Source: God in America/PBS

The source above puts the comment, "Hearst was a Roman Catholic" in parenthesis, as the article is being written by a former Roman Catholic, but technically, Hearst's theological identification was "Anglo-Catholic" as he was a "Episcopalian" who was simply following the "counter-reformationist" protocols of the "Church of England" at the time. For our purposes however, the distinction is moot, as both are "devotees" of the Roman "Lucifer-Christ" of Christmas.  The Episcopal Church (i.e.,Church of England) is the historical and ecclesiastical "bed" of Freemasonry.




Anything with a "Steeple" on it, will tell you that "the gospel" is that "Christ" was crucified for sin, and was resurrected triumphantly, on the 3rd day. And thus, this is the "gospel", so it is really not so much whether or not someone says that, but what they ask people to do in response, (or what comes next) that is the problem.

For some, it might mean "drink the kool-aid" and commit suicide. For others, it might mean, give all your earthly belongings to our leader. And for others, it means "join our Church and observe Christmas", like we tell you. It is the "what comes next" that is always the problem. And because "the gospel" is just the "introduction", the "what comes next part" is actually the "real story", or.. the "real gospel" that is being "preached".

Billy Graham, claimed that "the gospel" was the "heart of Christmas", which is quite ironic, since it was the "Christmas Church" that "fought the gospel" for almost a thousand years, to the extreme of burning people alive for "preaching it".  That was contained in the part of "Haley's Bible Handbook", that Billy Graham had removed. So he was quite aware of the fact, his claim was historically fraudulent. 

Apparently, Satan "fathered" a "lie" for Billy Graham to tell.

Billy Graham was quite fond of referencing "the heart" in his preaching. In fact, when he DID "Preach the gospel", the way he explained to people on how to "become" a 'born-again' Christian, was by "accepting Jesus into your heart", by "saying this simple prayer"....

Millions of people all over the world became "Christmas Christians" by "accepting Jesus into their heart" by "saying this prayer".  This "technique" has become the "standard" of "how to become a Christian" in Evangelical America, today.  It is so famous, it is even listed on Google, and in "Wikipedia"


Dear Lord Jesus, I know that I am a sinner, and I ask for Your forgiveness. I believe You died for my sins and rose from the dead. I turn from my sins and invite You to come into my heart and life. I want to trust and follow You as my Lord and Savior.

- Google Citing Wikipedia

Anyone with a "background" growing up in "Church" of any "Evangelical" flavor, can recall the numerous ministers who approached the close of their sermons, with an invitation to "become a Christian' and cite the text in Revelation...

Rev 3:20 

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

After his various pleas for the advantages of "self-improvement" and "success" to be found with "J-e-s-u-s", he would ask "the sinners" to "ask J-e-s-u-s into THEIR HEART" and "ACCEPT J-E-S-U-S as their PERSONAL SAVIOR". No one seems to know what the word "Personal" seemed to signify, but it was always used. (As though you might accidentally accept him as your INSTITUTIONAL savior instead?)

They have modified the language a bit now-days, because it became a point of comedic criticism. But the gist is really still the same.

Most people simply "accept" whatever religious garbage they get fed by their "Pastor" because they have lives and jobs to attend to, and after all,that's "his job". But for people who actually consider their "theology", when you begin to "examine the Scriptures" to "see if those things be so" (as did the Bereans), none of those things will be found anywhere in the New Testament. In fact, not even the text in Revelation 3:20, which was not an "invitation" to "become a Christian", it was a rebuke to a "Church".

And whenever you discover a "herd instinct" to do something so dramatically wrong, over such an important issue like "Salvation", you have to ask where this "idea" is coming from? And why it is being done this way?

Historically, the whole idea of "becoming a Christian" by "asking JESUS to COME INTO YOUR HEART", is about as alien to the Bible, as doing "Kundalini for Jesus".  There is something that is very very "alien" about this practice. Because NO WHERE in the Bible, did ANYONE EVER, "become a Christian" that way. Not once. Not a single time. Not ever.  There is an absolute and complete absence of this practice in the Bible. (Are we to believe no one knew how to become a Christian?)

In fact, there is not even a single text in the entire Bible that even says JESUS WANTS to be "In Your Heart" AT ALL.  It is an amazing "presumption" to think he even wants to be there, to begin with. If you are "really" talking to Christ, when you ask him to "come into your heart", you might get a "polite", NO THANK YOU.

The "human heart" in the Scripture, is a pretty abominable place. His "words" dwell in "our hearts". The "Holy Spirit" dwells within to make us "Holy". Thus the name. But Christ never once tells anyone, he wants inside their "Heart". (So what's going on here?) Why is this being done?



When you study the New Testament "Christ", you see Christ exhorting people to "repent and believe". The Apostles who follow say essentially the same thing, with additional explanations of "confess with thy mouth, and believe in thy heart", etc. But it's always pretty basic. Repent (Change your thinking), and believe.  No prayer is ever mentioned.

The "decision" to "repent" (meaning change your thinking) is followed by "baptism". Sometimes the steps between "repent" and "baptized" are shortened, so the words are mentioned together. To the Jewish audience these texts were addressing, "baptism" was a "conversion Mikvah". (It was the common practice in religious "conversions" when becoming a "Jew") Which is what they were being "born-again" in order to be. (Not "Christians") because that term had not even been coined yet, when the events of John 3, were occurring.

But one thing that never happened, was a "sinner's prayer" or an indication from Christ, he wanted to be "in" someone's "heart". He wanted his "words" to be in hearts. So what's the difference, and why is this such a big deal?

The answer to that question gets to the heart of the "Christmas Christ" substitution.

The "Born-again experience" Billy Graham was busy "selling America" was nothing more than a technique from old fashioned "devil worship", and it was not making "born-again Christians", it was making "new born Luciferians". (A completely alien "religion" to "Christianity" with a pagan "Solar-devil" as it's "Christ") A "false Christ".

The New Testament refers to this "entity" as APOLLYON (9:11), and says it is THE DEITY OF THE ANTICHRIST. It's "followers" go to hell. No one is being "saved" by this "Lucifer-Christ". It never "died for your sins". It never even "died" for it's own.




And it is no "accident" that THIS CHRISTMAS CHRIST wants to BE INSIDE YOU. The reason is that it is actually a NEPHILIM.

 In ancient Jewish texts like the Dead Sea Scrolls, demons are the disembodied spirits of dead Nephilim giants who perished at the time of the great flood.


Because they are "disembodied spirits", they "crave" to be "embodied", literally in a "human host". But because the "real Christ" in the New Testament was never a "disembodied spirit", he has no "need" (or desire) to be in YOURS.

Thus why the CHRISTMAS CHRIST, which really is a NEPHILIM (A Demon), is "spread" by "inhabiting" human bodies. People are literally asking a demon to come inside them.

But make no "mistake" about it, THE CHRISTMAS CHRIST is not the NEW TESTAMENT CHRIST. It is a "Demon", just as Paul warned "Christians" nearly 2000 years ago.


1Co 10:20, 21 

But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.


If  you have "accepted the CHRISTMAS CHRIST into YOUR HEART", please REPENT, before it is too late. It "cannot save you". It is the "great delusion".



Matthew 7:21-23

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. - KJV

The Bible "Promises" most Christians, that they will die and go to hell. And the mistake they make, will be a very very simple, and somewhat inexcusable mistake. It will be a inexcusable "mistake" over "identity".

While most preachers are telling people, that all that have to do is "accept Christ" to be saved, these same preachers turn around and then offer them a "fraudulent Christ" to "accept". (And what exactly would be the value of that?) except to land one, right in the middle, of the very text of Matthew 7:21-23, on "that day"?



There is a very "concrete" way, you can "discern" whether or not someone ever "accepted Christ", because to "accept" someone, anyone for that matter, including Christ, means you "accept" who they are, as they are. If the only way you can "accept" someone, is to create a completely fictitious fantasy about them, that is completely untrue, (but "acceptable") then it cannot really be said that you EVER "accepted" them.  The very same thing, is true of "Christ".
What is known about Christ, is fairly widespread, relatively common, and for the most part, not that controversial.


1. A JEW

It's really not that hard to miss. So why does Matthew 7 state that the majority of Christians in the world, and in history, will do precisely that? How could this possibly be?

Or did you simply REPLACE HIM, with someone MORE ACCEPTABLE?

1.   Did you "accept" his "name"?                                     Joshua (in English), Yeshua in Hebrew

       Matt.1:21, cmp. Acts 7:45

2.   Did you "accept" his "religion"?                               .................Judaism

       John 4:22

3.   Did you "accept" his definition of "God"?       ................The Shema (not "the trinity")

       Mark 12:29

4.    Did you "accept" his physical appearance?     ..................Stocky/Meaty, Semitic

        Luke 7:34, Isa.53:1

5.    Did you "accept" his "blood and flesh"?            ...................Passover

        THIS PASSOVER - Luke 22:13,15, Mtt.26:19
        THIS DO - Luke 22:19,1 Co.11:24,25
        THIS IS my body - Luke 22:19, Mtt.26:26, 1 Co.11:24,25
        THIS IS my blood - Luke 22:20, Mtt.26:28, 1 Co.11:24,25

6.    Did you "accept" his "New Testament, covenant"?          ....Passover

How many of the "above items" did you "accept", when you "accepted Christ"?

Because those items are who "Christ was" (and still is).  The list above could be made to be very very long. But these 6 items are more than enough to "illustrate" what has  really "happened" to "most Christians" who have been wrongly told, they have "accepted Christ". (When in fact, what they actually "accepted", was his Roman "substitution")

If the answer is "no" to all of the above, then what on earth do you think, you actually "accepted"?

The hard fact of the matter is that most "Christians" do not "Accept Christ", they REPLACE HIM, with someone MORE ACCEPTABLE.  "Luciferian preachers" assure them, it will not "matter" (contrary to Christ's own warning in Matthew 7)

If you really have to choose who to TRUST, between a "Luciferian preacher", and the words of Christ himself, who do you think you should really put your "faith" in?

Christ warns, "most Christians" will not "accept him". They will "accept" a substitute of him. (That is in your own Bible)