why the useless video? a mistake? just muzak…

The Two Babylons
or The Papal Worship Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod
and His Wife by Alexander Hislop

Christmas and Lady-day

If Rome be indeed the Babylon of the Apocalypse, and the Madonna enshrined in her sanctuaries
be the very queen of heaven, for the worshipping of whom the fierce anger of God was provoked
against the Jews in the days of Jeremiah, it is of the last consequence that the fact should be
established beyond all possibility of doubt; for that being once established, every one who
trembles at the Word of God must shudder at the very thought of giving such a system, either
individually or nationally, the least countenance or support. Something has been said already that
goes far to prove the identity of the Roman and Babylonian systems; but at every step the
evidence becomes still more overwhelming. That which arises from comparing the different
festivals is peculiarly so.
The festivals of Rome are innumerable; but five of the most important may be singled out for
elucidation–viz., Christmas-day, Lady-day, Easter, the Nativity of St. John, and the Feast of the
Assumption. Each and all of these can be proved to be Babylonian. And first, as to the festival in
honour of the birth of Christ, or Christmas. How comes it that that festival was connected with
the 25th of December? There is not a word in the Scriptures about the precise day of His birth, or
the time of the year when He was born. What is recorded there, implies that at what time soever
His birth took place, it could not have been on the 25th of December. At the time that the angel
announced His birth to the shepherds of Bethlehem, they were feeding their flocks by night in
the open fields. Now, no doubt, the climate of Palestine is not so severe as the climate of this
country; but even there, though the heat of the day be considerable, the cold of the night, from
December to February, is very piercing, and it was not the custom for the shepherds of Judea to
watch their flocks in the open fields later than about the end of October. *

* GILL, in his Commentary on Luke 2:8, has the following: “There are two sorts
of cattle with the Jews…there are the cattle of the house that lie in the city; the
cattle of the wilderness are they that lie in the pastures. On which one of the
commentators (MAIMONIDES, in Misn. Betza), observes, ‘These lie in the
pastures, which are in the villages, all the days of the cold and heat, and do not go
into the cities until the rains descend.’ The first rain falls in the month
Marchesvan, which answers to the latter part of our October and the former part
of November…From whence it appears that Christ must be born before the middle
of October, since the first rain was not yet come.” KITTO, on Deuteronomy 11:14
(Illustrated Commentary), says that the “first rain,” is in “autumn,” “that is, in
September or October.” This would make the time of the removal of the flocks
from the fields somewhat earlier than I have stated in the text; but there is no
doubt that it could not be later than there stated, according to the testimony of Maimonides, whose acquaintance with all that concerns Jewish customs is well known. It is in the last degree incredible, then, that the birth of Christ could have taken place at the end of December. There is great unanimity among commentators on this point. Besides Barnes, Doddridge, Lightfoot, Joseph Scaliger, and Jennings, in his “Jewish Antiquities,” who are all of opinion that December 25th could not be the right time of our Lord’s nativity, the celebrated
Joseph Mede pronounces a very decisive opinion to the same effect. After a long and careful
disquisition on the subject, among other arguments he adduces the following;–”At the birth of
Christ every woman and child was to go to be taxed at the city whereto they belonged, whither
some had long journeys; but the middle of winter was not fitting for such a business, especially
for women with child, and children to travel in. Therefore, Christ could not be born in the depth
of winter. Again, at the time of Christ’s birth, the shepherds lay abroad watching with their flocks
in the night time; but this was not likely to be in the middle of winter. And if any shall think the
winter wind was not so extreme in these parts, let him remember the words of Christ in the
gospel, ‘Pray that your flight be not in the winter.’ If the winter was so bad a time to flee in, it
seems no fit time for shepherds to lie in the fields in, and women and children to travel in.”
Indeed, it is admitted by the most learned and candid writers of all parties * that the day of our
Lord’s birth cannot be determined, ** and that within the Christian Church no such festival as
Christmas was ever heard of till the third century, and that not till the fourth century was far
advanced did it gain much observance.

* Archdeacon WOOD, in Christian Annotator, LORIMER’s Manual of
Presbytery. Lorimer quotes Sir Peter King, who, in his Enquiry into the Worship
of the Primitive Church, &c., infers that no such festival was observed in that
Church, and adds–”It seems improbably that they should celebrate Christ’s
nativity when they disagreed about the month and the day when Christ was born.”
See also Rev. J. RYLE, in his Commentary on Luke, who admits that the time of
Christ’s birth is uncertain, although he opposes the idea that the flocks could not
have been in the open fields in December, by an appeal to Jacob’s complaint to
Laban, “By day the drought consumed me, and the frost by night.” Now the whole
force of Jacob’s complaint against his churlish kinsman lay in this, that Laban
made him do what no other man would have done, and, therefore, if he refers to
the cold nights of winter (which, however, is not the common understanding of
the expression), it proves just the opposite of what it is brought by Mr. Ryle to
prove–viz., that it was not the custom for shepherds to tend their flocks in the
fields by night in winter.

** GIESELER, CHRYSOSTOM (Monitum in Hom. de Natal. Christi), writing in
Antioch about AD 380, says: “It is not yet ten years since this day was made
known to us”. “What follows,” adds Gieseler, “furnishes a remarkable illustration
of the ease with which customs of recent date could assume the character of
apostolic institutions.” Thus proceeds Chrysostom: “Among those inhabiting the
west, it was known before from ancient and primitive times, and to the dwellers
from Thrace to Gadeira [Cadiz] it was previously familiar and well-known,” that
is, the birth-day of our Lord, which was unknown at Antioch in the east, on the
very borders of the Holy Land, where He was born, was perfectly well-known in
all the European region of the west, from Thrace even to Spain!

… Even where the sun was the favourite object of worship, as in Babylon itself and elsewhere, at this festival he was worshipped not merely as the orb of day, but as God incarnate. It was an essential principle of the Babylonian system, that the Sun or Baal was the one only God.
When, therefore, Tammuz was worshipped as God incarnate, that implied also that he was an
incarnation of the Sun. In the Hindoo Mythology, which is admitted to be essentially
Babylonian, this comes out very distinctly.

The Yule Log (figure must be viewed to appreciate)
From MAURICE’s Indian Antiquities, vol. vi. p. 368.
Therefore, the 25th of December, the day that was observed at Rome as the day when the
victorious god reappeared on earth, was held at the Natalis invicti solis, “The birth-day of the
unconquered Sun.” Now the Yule Log is the dead stock of Nimrod, deified as the sun-god, but
cut down by his enemies; the Christmas-tree is Nimrod redivivus–the slain god come to life
again. In the light reflected by the above statement on customs that still linger among us, the
origin of which has been lost in the midst of hoar antiquity, let the reader look at the singular
practice still kept up in the South on Christmas-eve, of kissing under the mistletoe bough. That
mistletoe bough in the Druidic superstition, which, as we have seen, was derived from Babylon,
was a representation of the Messiah, “The man the branch.”

…It was no mere astronomic festival, then, that the Pagans celebrated at the winter solstice. That
festival at Rome was called the feast of Saturn, and the mode in which it was celebrated there,
showed whence it had been derived. The feast, as regulated by Caligula, lasted five days; * loose
reins were given to drunkenness and revelry, slaves had a temporary emancipation, ** and used
all manner of freedoms with their masters.
* Subsequently the number of the days of the Saturnalia was increased to seven. 96
** If Saturn, or Kronos, was, as we have seen reason to believe, Phoroneus, “The
emancipator,” the “temporary emancipation” of the slaves at his festival was
exactly in keeping with his supposed character.
This was precisely the way in which, according to Berosus, the drunken festival of the month
Thebeth, answering to our December, in other words, the festival of Bacchus, was celebrated in
Babylon. “It was the custom,” says he, “during the five days it lasted, for masters to be in
subjection to their servants, and one of them ruled the house, clothed in a purple garment like a
king.” This “purple-robed” servant was called “Zoganes,” the “Man of sport and wantonness,”
and answered exactly to the “Lord of Misrule,” that in the dark ages, was chosen in all Popish
countries to head the revels of Christmas. The wassailling bowl of Christmas had its precise
counterpart in the “Drunken festival” of Babylon; and many of the other observances still kept up
among ourselves at Christmas came from the very same quarter. The candles, in some parts of
England, lighted on Christmas-eve, and used so long as the festive season lasts, were equally
lighted by the Pagans on the eve of the festival of the Babylonian god, to do honour to him: for it
was one of the distinguishing peculiarities of his worship to have lighted wax-candles on his
altars. The Christmas tree, now so common among us, was equally common in Pagan Rome and
Pagan Egypt. In Egypt that tree was the palm-tree; in Rome it was the fir; the palm-tree denoting
the Pagan Messiah, as Baal-Tamar, the fir referring to him as Baal-Berith. The mother of Adonis,
the Sun-God and great mediatorial divinity, was mystically said to have been changed into a tree,
and when in that state to have brought forth her divine son. If the mother was a tree, the son must
have been recognised as the “Man the branch.” And this entirely accounts for the putting of the
Yule Log into the fire on Christmas-eve, and the appearance of the Christmas-tree the next
morning. As Zero-Ashta, “The seed of the woman,” which name also signified Ignigena, or
“born of the fire,” he has to enter the fire on “Mother-night,” that he may be born the next day
out of it, as the “Branch of God,” or the Tree that brings all divine gifts to men. But why, it may
be asked, does he enter the fire under the symbol of a Log? To understand this, it must be
remembered that the divine child born at the winter solstice was born as a new incarnation of the
great god (after that god had been cut in pieces), on purpose to revenge his death upon his
murderers. Now the great god, cut off in the midst of his power and glory, was symbolised as a
huge tree, stripped of all its branches, and cut down almost to the ground. But the great serpent,
the symbol of the life restoring Aesculapius, twists itself around the dead stock (see Fig. 27), and
lo, at its side up sprouts a young tree–a tree of an entirely different kind, that is destined never to
be cut down by hostile power–even the palm-tree, the well-known symbol of victory. The
Christmas-tree, as has been stated, was generally at Rome a different tree, even the fir; but the
very same idea as was implied in the palm-tree was implied in the Christmas-fir; for that covertly
symbolised the new-born God as Baal-berith, * “Lord of the Covenant,” and thus shadowed forth
the perpetuity and everlasting na ture of his power, not that after having fallen before his enemies,
he had risen triumphant over them all.
* Baal-bereth, which differs only in one letter from Baal-berith, “Lord of the
Covenant,” signifies “Lord of the fir-tree.”

If The Real Messiah (not Jesus as celebrated at Christmas or taught in Christianity) said “I am the True Vine…” it is impied that there was a false vine as well. This warning is explicit thruout the scriptures by the Messiah Yahushua who came in IAUE’s name, Who sent him, and by IAUE of course, his Father, Himself.

Please people, especially Christians and Jews, Pagans and Wiccans, we have not been given the truth regarding this – AT ALL. There is NO TRUTH IN CHURCH, OR IN SYNAGOGUE or in the worship of the Goddess or Horned God, wherever there is established religion, there is huge deception by the Master of Lies who poses as a mother, a son and a saviour-figure for everyone’s particular predisposed weaknesses. You must find the truth of the lies we have been fed out for yourselves, no one wants you to find truth and get out of these death-grips on your sprits, minds, bodies and souls. This season is particularly exploitative of emotions, of all kinds – all designed to guarantee your destruction. Please get out of it. Please.