Alan Todd Ministries International (ATMI)

Part #2 RESPOSNE TO THIS ARTICLE - Wednesday, December 13, 2023

CHRISTMAS IS COMING: THE EISEGETES ARE OUT.

JEREMIAH 10:2-4 has absolutely nothing to do with Christmas Trees, and celebrating any day as Jesus’ birthday is as legitimate as celebrating your own birthdays, wedding anniversaries, church and pastoral anniversaries, or other liturgical functions. I hope you do not post any false and improperly sourced memes borrowed from the internet but you are ready for real biblical and contextual research.

HERE IS WHY:

1) ANACHRONISM: Jeremiah was a contemporary of Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Daniel and Ezekiel (some pre-exilic and others exilic). Jeremiah prophesied about the destruction, deportation and Babylonian Captivity (627BCE circa). To claim that his writing was referring to Christmas Trees is not only anachronistic but shows ignorance of the history behind the invention of Christmas Trees themselves by German Christians in the 16th century, which later became popular in America. Notice the differences in dates (627BCE and 6th Century). Jeremiah did not speak about Christmas Trees;

2) CONTEXT: The first thing any serious interpreter pays attention to is context. We are taught that ‘a text without a context is pretext for a prooftext’. Context is king! Notice the exegetical and structural context of Jeremiah 10:2-4...

(a) Jeremiah 10:1-2 was addressed specifically to ‘the house of Israel’. YHVH was concerned about the ‘way of the heathen’, ‘the custom of the people’ and ‘the signs of the heathen’. Notice firstly that the tree was cut down and decorated (10:3-4) but also had carved out mouths though they could not speak. They had feet but could not walk (10:5). They were like scarecrows (KJV says they are upright like palm trees). In other words, they were shaped and made in figures like human beings. These were carved out idols from the wood (10:5) not representative of the modern Christmas Trees. Jeremiah did not speak about Christmas Trees;

(b) What is often missed by those who suggest that this text is an injunction against Christmas Trees is that the texts says they are ‘neutral’ because that ‘they cannot do good or evil’, and that Israel should not be afraid of them (10:5). In other words, even if this was a legitimate reference to Christmas Trees they were not a threat to Israel. A knife in the hand of a cook is of great benefit, but a knife in the hand of a murderer is dangerous. The problem is never the knife! If one wishes to worship their modern Christmas Trees then such becomes an idol. But to claim that all who use Christmas Trees are engaging idolatry is a fallacy of equivocation. You don’t change your names because someone who is a pe*****le, crook, or murderer has the same name. Trees are “praised” in scriptures: Psalm 104:16, Isaiah 41:19, Isaiah 9:10, Psalm 80:10, Ezekiel 17:23, Amos 2:9, Ezekiel 17:22, Song of Songs 4:11, Psalm 80:10-11. Christmas, or any other trees, as decoration or being decorated is not idolatry or a problem, unless they are used with the sole motive of worship.

3) HERMENEUTICS: The bigger concern I have is a hermeneutical one: no doctrine may be established from the use of a single text without other supporting evidence or documentation. We have no ‘other’ injunction from canonical literature about Christmas Trees but we have hundreds of Hebraic and Greek texts that forbids idolatry (the worship of gods instead of, or alongside YHVH). Exodus 20:1-5 explicitly forbids Israelite worship of false deities (a common practice among Ancient Near Eastern nations). This was expressed in the form of ‘henotheism’ (the worship of many gods but one is worshipped as greater than the others) and ‘monolatry’ (the worship of one god only, without denying the existence of the others). Jeremiah did not have Christmas Trees in mind, and neither did his audience. He was concerned about Israel worshipping idols.

4) LOGIC: If Christmas Trees are problematic from reading these texts, then we should be equally concerned about placing flowers on graves, receiving bouquets as gifts, and any type of decorative ornamentation at all. And please make sure that our church buildings have no ‘balconies’ designed from patterns provided by pagan Greece and pagan Rome. Then make sure you do not use the the terms ’Sunday’ (pagan worship of the Sun), ‘Monday’ (pagan worship of the Moon), ‘Tuesday’ (the worship of pagan god Twia), ‘Wednesday’ (the worship of the pagan Woden’s Day), ‘Thursday’ (the worship of the god of thunder), ‘Friday’ (the worship of the god Freya), and ‘Saturday’ (the worship of the god Saturn or Saturnalia). That’s how the illogical conclusion the claim that this text refers to Christmas Trees sounds. We should be consistent with all forms of ornamentations not just Christmas Trees.

5) CORRELATION: The problem of correlation is another contextual issue often ignored by anti-Christmas propagators. They think if Christmas Trees are pagan then Christmas must be too. Notwithstanding that Christmas and Christmas Trees were not created or invented by pagans but by Christians themselves. This is irrefutable from the historical evidence, and one has to include the issue of whether Jesus was born in 25th December in order to conflate the veracity of celebrating Jesus’ birth by the church with pagan Rome. I will address Christmas Day (25th December) in separate post, and demonstrate that it was not originally invented with pagan or commercialised intentions. Pagan elements were deliberately included in its celebration so that Christians would avoid celebrating Jesus’ birth because of syncretism. The same with Easter (a godly Christian commemorative event of the resurrection, attacked by both Christians and non-Christians alike - unfortunately). At Easter the resurrection is attacked! At Christmas the incarnation is attacked! These two doctrines form the basis of Christianity.
Nothing in scripture forbids or affirms the use of Christmas Trees, and since gifts are placed under them, and lights used as positive metaphors in scriptures (Genesis 1:14, Luke 11:33, James 1:17) are placed on them, including a star often placed at the top of the Christmas Tree (Matthew 2:2, 2:7,2:9, 2:10), there might be commemorative benefits in displaying one at Christmas.
In sum, putting up a Christmas Tree will do no harm to your Christianity, your spirituality, or constitute idolatry.

My response begins here:

RESPONSE: Fundamentally, I do not disagree with 97 - 99% of this article and agree that the Jeremiah text does not teach explicitly against the Christmas tree. Here is the 1 - 3% that may not be a disagreement per se but a technical difference about how we understand spiritual matters. Let me use this example to express my view on this. In the Garden of Eden, Satan possessed a serpent and mounted a strategy to rob humanity of their authority, in deceiving them to eat from the ‘tree’, they disobeyed God and fell into death. That single act of eating from the forbidden ‘tree’, plunged humanity into the depths of death and separation from God. What actually happened? How did the actions of Adam and Eve transmit to every human born after that point? That day Satan lied and continues to lie to this day. Why does he lie? To whom does he lie?

One of the elements of spirituality that I do not believe, can be or should be neglected in the understanding of this discussion we are having is the transmutation that spiritual ideas, practices and systems are real. What am I saying? The same demonic powers that were at work in ancient societies, originating in the Garden of Eden, with Satan, remain active in successive societies albeit in different forms. For example, for the origin of some pagan practices we must go to Genesis 10: 6-10. One of the reasons many may not realize this scripture and never give serious attention to it is because whenever read list of names in the Bible we tend to skip them and not give attention to those finite details. The text, usually called the Table of Nations, deals with the origin of Ni**od, the grandson of Noah, who was the builder and founder of Babel and the Babylonian system of man-ruled government and empires. He was the founder of the first world kingdom. His name actually means “he rebelled”. In this he was the catalysis of the great organized worldwide apostasy from God, the creator and has dominated the world to this very day, by and through the powers of the air. According to mythology [folklore, tradition] (some people interpret mythology as make-believe and not real, however, mythology is another way of recording a narrative of a system of belief held by a people, pagans included), If this is true or not, is not the issue. Some may count it not real, because they don’t believe in myths. But to ancient people these so called myths were believed and incorporated into life. The Mesopotamian civilization and culture, believed Ni**od married his mother, whose name was Samiramis. Ni**od died early and was venerated by his mother-wife that her son-husband had survived as a spirit being. Hence, Ni**od was alive and well, just in a different form. Samiramis cunningly devised a religious system that purported that Ni**od was still alive and thus was able to position herself as the “Queen of Heaven” and Ni**od the “divine son of heaven.” This satanic doctrine (I Tim. 4:1), teachings from demonic entities began to spread throughout various parts of the world. Ni**od became known in some places as the false messiah, son of Baal the Sun-god. In this Babylonian system the “Mother and Child” (Semiramis and Ni**od reborn) became chief objects of worship. In different countries the “Mother and Child” worship spread. In Egypt it was Isis and Orisis. In Asia Cybele and Deoious. In Rome Fortuna and Jupiterpuer. As far as China, Japan, and Tibet there have been found the counterpart of the Madonna (the Roman Catholic) veneration of “Mother and Child”.

Ancient practices seem to emerge over long periods of time in different places. Bearing different names and varieties of practices, but hold many of the same root elements.

When I look at the Jeremiah text, I notice some similarities in ancient practices that seem to lead to a fundamental false worship. You have clearly stated that the practices described in Jeremiah is a direct rebuke of idol worship that the people of Israel are guilt of desiring. The prophet warns, learn not the way of the heathen, pagan, unbelievers.

How is it that in these regions of the world separated by thousands of miles and varying cultural elements somehow adopted this same religious practice under different names? If we attempt at leaving spiritual elements out of the conversation, we might as well do that for all topics of historical nature.

This brings us to the next element of my 1 - 3% disagreement or difference. Your use of the word ‘the church’, or ‘Christians’ in the 16th [not sure if you meant 6th] century founded the practice of Christmas trees. Why would they do that? What scriptural instruction would cause that action? Why, would it have taken 16 [or 6] centuries for a group of Christians to invent this practice when nowhere in scripture are we remotely instructed to do so. They may be called ‘christians’, but were they bible believing? Maybe, I need to take back a few percentages. Your closing sentence, “In sum, putting up a Christmas Tree will do no harm to your Christianity, your spirituality, or constitute idolatry.” I classify Christmas tress as a tradition of men, having zero explicit or implicit instruction from scripture and travelling very close to idolatry. To participate in this as a Christian, I believe can have some negative implications. Jesus in quoting the prophet, said “Isaiah aptly prophesied about you hypocrites, as it is written, ’This people honor me with their lips (not unlike those who today say pagan influence is not a part of honoring of Jesus) but their hearts are far removed from me. It is in vain that they keep worshipping me, because they teach the commands of men as doctrine.’ You let go of the commandment of God and cling to the tradition of men. You skillfully disregard the commandment of God to keep your tradition.” I think people who attempt to associate so call Christmas with the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, pretty much will use any excuse to keep celebrating a festival that has no direct instructions from scripture but closely aligns with pagan influences as traditional idea that its “for Jesus.” - Mark 7:6–9) and walk dangerously close to a precipice. He goes on to say, “thus, you make the word of God invalid by your tradition that you have handed down, and you do many things like this.” - Mark 7:13

I cannot understand how any reasonable thinking person can associate the Christmas tree with the incarnate Christ and any event revolving around the birth of Jesus and the worship of our Lord as having no bearing on ones Christianity and spirituality!

Kingdom Blessings,

Alan Todd

Part #1 A RESPONSE TO THIS ARTICLE - Thursday, December 7, 2023

DECONSTRUCTING THE PAGAN LIE ABOUT CHRISTMAS.
Around this time each year the anti-Christmas crowd usually surface, offering numerous posts on social platforms and elsewhere. These posts tend to consist of memes copied from the internet or non-peer reviewed uncritical articles.

Response: To be honest, I believe this designation of anti-Christmas crowd, of which I am unashamedly, a member is not a fair and respectful designation. I do understand that without a healthy discussion of church history it can be easy to slip between the cracks of history and get lost defending suppositions that are debatable or not grounded in truth. This is a hard saying, and I say it for one simple reason. It has been said that it is those who have won the war that write the history books. History is told from the vantage point of those who write the books – those who dominate the public square, very much like the legacy media today. Those who narrate a story get to influence what people believe. So between the close of the New Testament and the first two centuries the waters are muddied as many false believers of Greek origin rushed into places once led by the apostles of the lamb to preach and gather disciples after themselves. Before I am labelled as being too opinionated, I reference the Luke’s record of Paul’s speech at Ephesus in Acts 20. Descending from his admonition to the Elders to be good overseers of the church, he hits the high cymbal; we are grabbed by the collar, “After my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” (29-30). Written in the vicinity of the 50 – 60’s A.D.
What was Paul warning against? This new born faith, Christianity, was born into a pagan culture that FW. Farrar, in his work The Early Days of Christianity, Cassell and Company, 1884, said was rife with moral degradation, licentiousness, rivalry, indecency, and a host of perverted practices, both in deeds and words. Paul knew that men had ulterior motives for ministry. He stated to the Philippians that men were preaching for different reason, many were disingenuous and were only looking to promote themselves and have a following.

Much of what the author of these posts is addressing, in my opinion is really an argument that steams from a suppositions about the origin and the nature of the early church. This is also my starting point. Historian are fairly conclusive that the Christmas festivities we see today stem about the mid to late fourth century. Hardly the foundations of the Apostolic church. I believe that if the Christmas the author is defending is truly biblical, we would see its practice in the New Testament document. While we all believe in the incarnation, we can hardly see any practice of the celebration of the birthday of Jesus in the scriptures.

As a result of this, I have decided to offer three brief articles on the matter. This is the first. In my observations I found:
(a) that the Bible says absolutely nothing “directly” about celebrating or not celebrating Christmas, thereby rendering the festival a non-doctrinal and non-biblical matter. Yet positive things are said about celebrating the entrance of Jesus into the world in the birth narratives at Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 2:1-7.

Response:
The question one must ask, is if the bible is silent on an issue, does that mean that that issue has no doctrinal or theological implications that bears upon how we as Christians live our lives. For example, the bible is silent about smoking, are we to extrapolate from this that there is no doctrinal implication for smoking on the life of a believer? The bible is silent on gambling, or doesn’t give any explicit prohibitions on the subject. Are we to surmise that horse race betting or playing poker is permissible?
If the celebration of Christmas is non-biblical and non-doctrinal, why are we even having this discussion? Let’s eat, drink and be merry. The reason for this discussion is because, I believe it is doctrinal and biblical not to overtly mix practices of heathen, and pagan rituals, superstitions, and myths into the truth of biblical faith.

I will be contending in this responsive essay that while the bible may say nothing directly about celebrating Christmas, the bible is very clear about not indulging in practices that are associated with ungodly belief systems and labelling them Christian. I will do this by presenting that the title of this article is false. Christmas as we know it, is not a pagan lie, but a pagan fact.

First, Jesus’ birth should be considered an agency for “preaching the gospel”, and this is affirmed by Luke’s use of the Greek word for gospel εὐαγγελίζω, meaning to “bring good news”. The same word εὐαγγελίζω or some variations thereof ἐυηγγελισα and εὐαγγέλιον is used for the apostles or disciples preaching the gospel in scriptures (eg. Romans 1:15-16). The same word is also used when Jesus preached the gospel at Matthew 4:23 and 9:35. The same word εὐαγγέλιον is used of John the Baptist’s preaching at Mark 1:14. And the list goes on. The incontrovertible claim here is that scriptures clearly establish the birth of Jesus as a vehicle for “preaching the gospel”, first announced by angels.

Response: I am not really clear why this paragraph is here, inserted. There is not a preacher that will read this post and disagree that that birth of Jesus is a recorded Biblical fact and that the preaching of the incarnation is critical and essential to the message of the Kingdom of God. While, there isn’t much preaching in the New Testament text of Christ birth, by the New Testament writers, we have enough, from Old Testament prophecies, Matthew and Luke’s records to present the essentiality of this birth as part of the gospel message. Even Christ at his resurrection sighting in Luke 24:26 -27, begins teaching about his sufferings, “Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself”.

We can surmise that “the things concerning himself” would also include his birth. So the defense of Christ’s birth is warranted and does not fall in any way under the “pagan lie” of Christmas. So, I am not sure why this was included in this article.

Second, wise men brought “gifts” for Jesus and “worshipped” at his birth (Matthew 2:1-3, 2:10-11). What is interesting is that the word “worship” used in these verses προσκυνέω is used primarily when giving reverence to God, as seen in numerous other NT passages (eg John 4:20-24). What cannot be denied is that “worship” forms an integral part of celebrating Christ’s birth.

Response: Worship is as old as mankind. Again, I am not sure why this is brought up in this article, I for sure do not deny that Jesus was worshipped. A matter of fact, I will contend that, that is all we must be doing when we reflect on the incarnation. Is worship God for his coming into the world to forgive us our sins and make the path for us to return to God in good standing. Worship is native to the Christian experience, even devil worship.

To continue - “giving of gifts” by wise men exonerate the practice of sharing with others today.

Response: I would contend in its purest form that the demonstration of the wise men giving gifts to Jesus Christ, teaches us more about bringing our best to Christ. Jesus’s teaching about going the extra mile with someone has more value in teaching us about sharing with other than this text. This display of gift giving is demonstratively directed to Jesus Christ. I do not believe that sharing with others is the point of the text.

While we can hardly decry generosity to each other, one that should never be restricted to one season of the year, and two, this misdirected assumption sees Canadian consumers expecting to spend an average of $1,635 this holiday season, a 13% increase from 2022 (pwc Canada). While this is happening, the very Christ that we say is to be worshipped during this season; and the houses of worship experience major declines in donor giving. I believe, I read a post from the author that maybe churches should consider releasing church buildings due to the slow return of believers post covid and its impact on church finances. Why should the church consider closing its doors because believers have decided not to return to the building to worship, while consumer purchases increase year over year? While I am not an economist, something seems really fishy here. The merchant of the earth are seeing gains, amidst volatility in the markets, and the church is under pressure to maintain stability in its operations. I am not writing to discuss if the church should be seeking different models of operation, that’s a different discussion. But the idea that giving gifts to each other is supported by the text of the wise men is in my opinion unsubstantiated.

To correct one error: the biblical passages did not mention “three wise men” as is incorrectly assumed in many books and popular literature or caricatured on gift cards. There were instead “three gifts” - gold, frankincense, and myrrh.
The concept of “three men” often called “Majis” or “Kings” is derived from traditions surrounding the Christmas story. The Encyclopaedia Britannica offered this entry about them, “In about the 8th century the names of three Magi—Bithisarea, Melichior, and Gathaspa—appear in a chronicle known as the Excerpta latina barbari. They have become known most commonly as Balthasar, Melchior, and Gaspar (or Casper). According to Western church tradition, Balthasar is often represented as a king of Arabia or sometimes Ethiopia, Melchior as a king of Persia, and Gaspar as a king of India.” This became later incorporated and embedded in the biblical story. The giving of gifts is biblically affirmed as an integral part of celebrating Jesus’ birth.
b) In the birth narratives (Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 2:1-7) social gatherings, personal visits, portrayal of joy and celebrations were evident. The social element surrounding Jesus’ birth undergirds the practice of meeting with family and friends…noticed that the wise men came from afar. Social and family gatherings is inescapably part of celebrating Jesus’ birth.
c) One element often missed in the birth narratives when celebrating Jesus’ entrance into the world is what became known as “the naming ceremony” (Luke 2:21-35, Matthew 1:21-25). Today we call it the “registration of birth”, where records are kept to commemorate our “birthdays” or “birthdates”. Each time we celebrate our own birthdates or birthdays we are reminiscent of a practice to which Jesus’ earthly parents submitted themselves. Mary and Joseph thought it necessary to record their son’s birth. It is because of this that we can tell Jesus’ age when he went into the Temple to reason with the learned Jews (Luke 2:42ff). He was twelve years old. If one deny the celebration of Jesus’ birth as a legitimate practice then they should equally reject any registration of birth.
These last two paragraphs have nothing to do with the “deconstructing pagan lie”. I don’t believe anyone is denying the birth of Jesus Christ is an historical fact. Most knowledgeable people know that the three wise men is a myth born out of the number of gifts, how consequential is this in the narrative? Not sure. We are battling tradition and legend on this one. These have little to no bearing on the Pagan lie listed in the title of the article.
If your Christmas celebrations include the elements of “worship”, “giving of gifts”, “social gatherings”, “joyous appraisal of Christ’s birth”, then you are not engaging anything “paganistic”. Moreover, many do not know, and have never researched the meaning of the words “pagan” or “paganistic”. If they did, they would realise that marriage ceremonies, wearing wedding rings on the left ring-finger in the Western world, throwing the bouquet of flowers by the bride at the wedding reception, approving the wearing of the wedding dress, having balconies in their churches, using theatrical seating arrangements in church buildings: and the list goes on! These all have elements of paganism in them, often invented and used by pagans. In my view, an attack on Christmas is an attack on one of Christianity’s most important doctrine: the incarnation.

Response: The statements being made here are astute distractors from the real question of the pagan lie. Most intelligent and moderately studied people know that our western world is born out of Greco-Roman culture and influence. I.e the days of the weeks are “pagan” gods, the months of the year are named after “pagan” gods. We don’t have room in the responsive essay to list all the pagan influences in our world. But that Is not the argument. The argument is that Christmas being pagan, is a lie. To suggest that Christmas, as we know it today is not influenced by paganism is extremely difficult to fathom. From my recollection, the author of the posted article is well aware of syncretism of Judaism and Baalism; why there is such a refusal to accept that paganism falls within the same context in its influence on Christianity is perplexing to me.
Clement A. Miles, in Christmas In Ritual and Tradition, Christian and Pagan writes, “We have now to leave the commemoration of the Nativity of Christ, and to turn to the other side of Christmas—its many traditional observances which, though sometimes coloured by Christianity, have nothing to do with the Birth of the Redeemer. This class of customs has often, especially in the first millennium of our era, been the object of condemnations by ecclesiastics, and represents the old paganism which Christianity failed to extinguish. The Church has played a double part, a part of sheer antagonism, forcing heathen customs into the shade, into a more or less surreptitious and unprogressive life, and a part of adaptation, baptizing them into Christ, giving them a Christian name and interpretation, and often modifying their form.” Miles, writes an extensive work on the early traditions of Christmas, not to criticize its origin but rather to explain the truth of its origin. He does so without shame, but honestly, explains the influences upon the church he knows. I found Miles work, refreshingly honest and comforting, in that, while I disagree with his overall position, (he writes assumptively), I appreciate his condor and honesty in telling the truth of the origins of paganism upon Christianity. He doesn’t pretend to mask or cover the old paganism practices that have made their way into modern Christian thought on the subject of Christmas. He lays them bare. But he is also able to say there are elements that are uncertain.

It seems apparent to me that the waters we are swimming in are pretty muddy. In my view, to use Christmas and the incarnation in the same sentence is deeply troubling. For one simple reason; the incarnation is clearly and decisively a solid biblical doctrine (see Isa. 9:6; Matt. 1:23; Luke 1:31). Christmas was not introduced to the mainstream Christian movement until the fourth century.
H. Usener, in his work, “Das Weihnachtsfest”, 1911 writes, “When and where did the keeping of Christmas begin? Many details of its early history remain in uncertainty, but it is fairly clear that the earliest celebration of the Birth of Christ on December 25 took place at Rome about the middle of the fourth century, and that the observance of the day spread from the western to the eastern Church, which had before been wont to keep January 6 as a joint commemoration of the Nativity and the Baptism of the Redeemer.”
To suggest that Christmas and the Incarnation are on par with each other is a serious historical misdemeanor. The incarnation is a first century fact according to our Bible! While this is an absolute truth within orthodoxy, we have no place in the biblical text where any observance of the celebration of Christ birth is recorded, none whatsoever, by the early church. None of the New Testament writers, record any continuation of the celebration of Christ birth. Paul, in his defense of the resurrection, declares that his gospel began with the death of Christ (1 Cor. 15). It is not until two and half centuries later that celebrations of Christ’s birth is recognized in the Empire among new Greek converts.

This leaves two major questions of concern: (1) Does Jeremiah 10:2-4 forbids the use of Christmas Trees, and (2) Why do Christians celebrate Jesus’ birth on the 25th December? These I will address in the next two posts.

All videos or memes will be immediately deleted. If you cannot defend your perspective in writing or from posting links with proper peer-reviewed articles by qualified scholars, you are simply offering “personal opinions” and this discussion is not for you. Do feel free to share these posts but no derogative ad hominem comments are allowed in any of my discussions. Keep the vitriol and emotionalism out of it. Only respectful engagements.

Response: While you request proper peer reviewed articles by qualified scholars, you have not listed any reference to this affect in this post. Much of what is argued here seem to be personal opinions, from a highly thoughtful person. I mean no disrespect in my statements but I have attempted in this response to address some of the points listed. I will response to the other pieces as well.

Alan Todd

Dr Marvin Sanguinetti (PhD)
Reader in Theology and Religious Studies,
Biblical Studies, and Christian Theology.
COPYRIGHT
© please note that information shared in this post may be featured in an upcoming publication so when sharing please reference the full source if quoted or paraphrased as above. Feel free to copy and paste to your own page, but you must use the author’s full name and tag him in order to make him aware. Thanks.