THE CHRISTMAS STORY
Every year, you will hear Ministers get up and read from the Bible at Christmas. But the oddest thing about THE CHRIST-MASS STORY, is that the Ministers never read the parts of the Bible that actually speak about THE REAL STORY ABOUT CHRISTMAS. The REAL story about Christ-mass IS in the Bible. It's just not in the texts, where Christmas clergy actually point their readers to, at Christmas time. And there is a reason for that.
Instead these ministers, will read about the Birth of Christ? Which they also admit, wasn't his birth? And their congregations will stare at them with glazed over zombie faces, never realizing (or bothering to read about, or caring about) the meaning of that contradiction. (Written about in their own Bibles)
THE "CHRISTMAS STORY" IS ACTUALLY "THE COVER STORY"
FOSSILS OF THE INSTITUTALIZATION OF "NICOLAITANISM"
But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.
So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.
- The Risen Christ
The historical connections in the Scriptures, to the solar-ritual we now call a "Christ" Mass, are not symbolic or hyperbolic, but very literal and very real. The argument that a change in name, or the alleged object of worship, constitutes a discontinuation of the pagan or heathen practice, and an institution of a new "kosher" practice, is both cited and denounced by the prophets, apostles and authors of the Scriptures, in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. There, the prophets simply accused these heretical syncretistic innovators, of just "lying", in the name of God. And consequently, of "worshipping a lie".
That is an argument that is still continuing, to this day, as well. The way this ancient solar-ritual found refuge within "Christianity", is fully documented in the New Testament. Including not only references to the people who brought about this "falling away" or "corruption", but even down to such historic details, as citing their patron Saint. Who was the actual origin of the movement, to assimilate Roman paganism itself under allegedly cognate labels, as "Christianity", or what some have named "Christo-paganism". This movement was called "Nicolaitanism", and it's "Patron Saint" was "Saint Nicholas". (Not the one from Turkey, who was also a Nicolaitan, and thus his name) but the one you never hear about. The one from Beit Jala, Israel. The first one. There was a long succession of them. When the leader died, the next in line, took his "throne" and his name "Nicholas" to continue the legacy. They were the first to establish perpetual hierarchal successionism in "Christianity". And also of course, the first to assimilate the pagan Roman worship of the birth of the sun, as a "Christ" Mass.
As you will see, that is precisely how we got the "Church of the Nativity" in Bethlehem, where Christ wasn't born, often frequented by Nicolaitan pilgrims on December 25th, the day he wasn't born. And the truth about all these things, is what the "Christmas story" was invented to "hide". And it definitely did, need some hiding. Because obviously no one in their right mind, who knew the truth about it, would have had anything more to do with, any of it. Thus, why it was "hidden", instead of "explained".
Of course, the only problem for "real Christians" who are genuinely concerned about the validity and sincerity of their "faith", the New Testament was pretty clear that the Nicolaitans, would be damned for what they were doing, and for why they were doing it.
John, actually going so far, as coining the term "Anti-christs" to refer to them (1Jn 2:18, 2:22, 4:3, 2Jn 1:7) . You will read more about that in the section entitled "The Christmas Saint". Here however, it is mentioned in passing because the "elements" of the "Christmas Story" itself, will be shown to have been "transposed" onto, the Biblical account of Christ's birth. In an alien way, that intentionally "assimilated", the worship of what the New Testament addressed as "Satan", ...as the "Christ" of Christmas. (Not the New Testament "Christ", as the public is told, by "secret society" ministers)
The Nicolaitans were worshipping Satan (Rev.9:11), under the name of "Christ", on December 25th, (the "Birth of Apollo" during the Roman Saturnalia). And their legacy is still with us to this very day, under the name of it's Patron Saint, "Saint Nicholas", who invented this damnation as far back, as the New Testament itself.
THE BIG LIE
BELIEVING... IN "A BIG LIE"
You probably already know Christmas is a bit of a Lie. You obviously know there is no Santa Clause (if you are old enough to read this).
You probably already know Jesus wasn't born on December 25th. And you probably already know the date was really based on the winter solstice. But you probably don't know WHY this lie and all its various parts, are told...
And though a lie, YET believed and practiced anyway. And that is the biggest part of the Christmas lie that is a big lie. The lie that is being told at Christmas is not simply a harmless little benevolent lie, told to entertain children. It is a WHOPPER. to deceive adults.
How big a WHOPPER will leave you in shock and disbelief. You will swear the truth simply cannot be what it apparently is. And you will look for excuses, rationalizations and even consider the cost of simple denial, When you read what you are about to read. But it is all true. Whether you admit it or not, it is true. Whether you believe it or not, it will still be true. Agree with it or not, it will not matter.
It is the same truth, that has been true, for 4000 years. And gave birth in part, to not only the world's three largest religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, but even the founding of America itself. What you are about to read, is the truth about Christmas, that no one is ever allowed to tell. And until the age of the internet, most Americans were never allowed to hear, because it was censored. Ministers were even fired over it to keep it a secret and keep their people deceived.
Consequently, the general public was never told the truth, not by their Ministers, not by their school teachers, not in their Churches, not on their TVs, not on the News, not even on the educational channels, and some, not by their governments. It exists in parts and pieces throughout any common library, shadows and shapes of it will occasionally surface, fragments like broken bits of tiny glass left on the floor, That you don't see until you happen to step on it, and suddenly become aware of something painful that happened in the past.
The "Christmas Story" is not at all what you've been told. In fact, it's the precise OPPOSITE. It's not the story of the birth of Christ, it is the "cover story" that "buried him", in the Roman empire. And so, to "real Christians", it is perhaps the most offensive lie, on planet earth today. Or... at least it should be.
THE REAL CHRISTMAS STORY
The REAL Christmas story doesn't begin in BC/AD with the "birth of Christ". It begins thousands of years earlier. Long before even the existence of 1st century Judea. The real Christmas story begins in the first book of the Bible, known as "Genesis".
There, THE TREE, that we today call "the Christmas Tree" is mentioned, in it's earlier original middle-eastern form. It still had it's conical shape. And it was still an "ever-green" tree. But it was not the species of plant we usually think of as a "Christmas tree" which came from Europe. Because as this ritual was brought to Europe from the middle-east, the original tree species, known today as the "garden fig tree", did not grow in the colder climates of northern Europe. So they adapted the ritual, by using the local ever-green trees, which were similar in conical shape.
They were called originally called "Yalda" trees, which in later scandinavian language became known as "Yule trees". "Yalda" meant "Nativity", which was a reference to "the birth" of the Sun, among the Persians. (Persia was the location of the referenced "Gan Edin" or "Garden of Eden", which comes directly from the PERSIAN LANGUAGE)
Archeological research has discovered remains of seals and inscriptions referencing the legendary "Paradise tree" (i.e., the tree of "knowledge of good and evil") in Genesis 1-3. Below is what it looks like.
THE DAMNATION TREE, GAN EDEN, PERSIA
THE "REPLACEMENT" STORY
"DEMONIC SPIRITS" INSTEAD OF "BIBLICAL ANGELS"
The ORIGINAL MEANING of the term "LOST SOUL" referred to the spiritual state, where a person could not discern "God" from "Satan" or "Salvation" from "Damnation". It described a state where a person had "no idea" where they were, in the same way a person might be "lost" in the woods, with a broken compass. They were "lost".
Most people assume it really does not matter what is taught or what is believed because none of it is "true" anyway. Therefore "beliefs" and "rituals" are like a preference for flavors of Ice Cream, or what color T-shirt you prefer to wear.
But people who have experienced the reality of "spiritual things", no matter what the source of those experiences may have been, know that "spiritual things" produce real effects in our "experience".
And there could be no more tragic a mistake in "spiritual things" than to mistake a "demon" for an "angel", because these two things could not be more opposite. If you routinely exchange "demons" for "angels", having no ability to distinguish between the two, it would be certainly tragically comical to claim, in this spiritual state, one is "saved". And yet, that is precisely the claim millions of people calling themselves "Christian" make, every year. (Along with their very "lost ministers").
The "great delusion" of "Christmas" swaps the definition of God and Satan. And their "angels" come with them. When one actually examines "Christmas Angels", it becomes very very clear, which one is which. (Because there are visible "opposites" that are readily apparent)
If you have a "spirit" that is an "opposite" of a "Biblical angel"? Then what is it? (HINT: It's not an "angel") The "opposite" of a Biblical angel, is known as a "Demon". So if one fills their house with visible representations of "Demons", would that not "conjure up" Demons? And , if they have "spiritual experiences" with them, would they not be "Demonized"? (Of course they would) And such is the case with "Christmas angels" who surround "Christmas Christians".
"SORCERERS" INSTEAD OF "SAGES"
"THE MOTHER-GODDESS" INSTEAD OF "MARY"
Another favorite "target" for "conversion" into it's exact opposite, by the "Christmas story", is the person of "Mary". Mary is not the "Mother of God". God (which is eternal) has no "mother" or "father".(Heb.7:3)
Yet, in order to reverse engineer Rome's "Mother-goddess" worship back into it's state adoption of Nicolaitanism, Rome decided it would promote Mary not only to be the "Mother of God", they would arbitrarily attribute her with an "ASCENSION" (like Christ) in the 8th century. (Over a half millennia after Mary actually lived and died)
When they tell their "Christmas" story, they reflect that Nicolaitan pagan synthesis by incorporating descriptions into their telling of their version, of "Mary-the Mother-goddess, Mother of God" who comes "riding on a Donkey". Most would not even notice the detail switch. But researchers and scholars familiar with Roman polytheism, will immediately recognize the reference as "VESTA".
"NEPHILIM" INSTEAD OF "CHRIST"
Most people are familiar with the fact that in virtually all the "religious depictions" of the "Christ" celebrated in "Christmas", the "baby" never cries. It glows in the dark. All the animals are quiet and happy. And the scene is surrounded by "Nikes". Absolutely one of which happened. But it is not important that none of it happened, because nothing in the "Christmas story" is actually real anyway. It is a collection of Roman mythologies that have been "cobbled together" to create a "story" that is "superimposed" onto a "Christ" loosely paralleled by the New Testament . None of it needs to be accurate, because none of it is real anyway.
Which is perfectly fine if you feel comfortable basing your "eternity" on "demonic spirits" and Roman "myths". When it comes to their "Christmas" versions of Christ, their depictions of his "nature" are clearly consistent with their pagan Nicolaitan iconography. He is a non-human "super-man" baby, which glows in the dark. Half human, half-immortal, like the Greek god, Hercules.
In Biblical culture, these polytheistic "gods" were known as the "Nephilim" from Genesis 6. They were produced when the "sons of God" took the "daughters of men" and there were "giants" in the earth.(The off-spring were called "Nephilim", translated "giants") but which really means "feller" (one who "cuts trees") A "tree-cutter". Somehow it always comes back to "the tree".
In Biblical theology, the prince of the Nephilim, was known as "Azazel". Chief of all demons. Azazel was represented by the "goat" on the day of atonement that received the mark of ash on his forehead. You will see more about this connection later.
In the traditional iconography, the Christmas "infant" was shown with sun-rays emerging from his head, because it was the "birth of the sun".
This is simply a short small sampling of the serious "opposites" to Christ in the New Testament, that is created and promoted in the "Christmas story". Some pseudo-Christians will claim that "Christmas" promotes "Christ". That is only partially true. It does not promote the "Christ" of the New Testament. It promotes an occult "Christ" of Rome. And no one is "getting saved" by believing in "that" Christ. They are being "inoculated" against him.