The Paganism of Christmas part 2

4.      Christmas was originally a pagan holiday.

   The anti-Christmas position teaches that December 25^th was originally the date that was set aside to worship the birth of the Sun god. This is based largely on the book Two Babylons, by Alexander Hislop. Within this book, Hislop set out to expose the practices and customs of the Catholic Church as originating from pagan Babylon. However, Hislop was not satisfied in just proving certain church customs originated from pagan Babylon; he attacked the very fundamental Christian doctrines as having originated from paganism. For example, Hislop taught that “baptism for the remission of sins” originated from paganism (p. 137); “anointing with oil” originated from paganism (p. 165); “instrumental music” originated from paganism (p. 174); and he even claimed that the very image of the Cross originated from paganism (p. 199)!

   One thing that seems to give a lot of credibility to Hislop’s book is the use of many footnote references – “over 260 original sources of facts,” a publisher’s note says. However, if one would put forth the effort to find many of the old books to which he refers, you will find that the references often do not match his claims.

   In a nutshell, Hislop claims that our Christmas celebration (and the Babylonian religion) began with Nimrod of Gen. 10:8, 9. Hislop claims that Nimrod married Semiramis, and that Semiramis gave birth to Tammuz whose birth was celebrated on December 25^th. Then by comparing various mythologies from different countries, Hislop composes this detailed history of Nimrod, Semiramis, and Tammuz. Bear in mind, any information about Nimrod and Semiramis in any history book is, at best, sketchy. In the Bible, Nimrod is only mentioned FOUR TIMES – and his wife is NEVER mentioned! Nevertheless, Hislop claims to know all kinds of detailed information about Nimrod and his wife.

   Hislop’s method of trying to produce “history” based on mythology is often contradictory. Two Babylons p. 78 states that Nimrod’s wife was his daughter! On p. 44, his wife is his sister! On p. 317, she is his mother! On p. 307, Nimrod is a man with two mothers! On p. 76, he is the son of nine virgins. With such contradictory statements, how can any of his words be taken as true?

   Hislop claims that Nimrod and Semiramis were husband and wife. I have checked many recognized reference works, including the following: The Encyclopedia Americana, The Encyclopedia Britannica, The Encyclopedia Judaica, The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, The New Catholic Encyclopedia, & The World Book Encyclopedia. NOT ONE SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT NIMROD AND SEMIRAMIS BEING HUSBAND AND WIFE!

          It is probable that Hislop misunderstood his own source material (Smith, Classical Dictionary) and associated Nimrod with historical Ninus, the husband of Semiramis. However, even a cursory reading of historical evidence rules this out completely.  Not even Jewish historian, Josephus refers to them as husband and wife. Josephus refers to Nimrod as having lived during the time after the flood of Noah; but refers to Semiramis as having lived during the time of Nebuchadnezzar (Against Apion, I, 20), thousands of years apart! This agrees with the historical account of Semiramis. Ninus and Semiramis are first mentioned in the writings of Ctesias of Cnidus (c. 400 BC).

          According to the Encyclopedia Britannica 11^th, vol. 24, p. 617, “It was not until 1910 that the researches of Professor Lehmann-Haupt of Berlin restored her [Semiramis] to her rightful place in Babylonian-Assyrian history.” Semiramis is the Greek form of Sammuramat. The Encyclopedia Americana states, “The historical Semiramis, who was called Sammuramat by the Assyrians, was the wife of the Assyrian king Shamshi-Adad V (reigned 823-811 B.C.) and the mother of Adadnirari III (reigned 810-783). She was queen regent during the minority of her son from about 810 to 806.” According to the historical account, Semiramis gave birth to a son named Ninyas (not Tammuz). Semiramis murdered her own husband and then reigned over Assyria as regent for her son. It is recorded that she waged battle against King Stabrobates of India (King Supratika of the Indian Ikshvaku dynasty) and failed. This matches the historical account of Queen Shammuramat (824-811 BC) who ruled Assyria while her son, Adad-nirari III, came to proper age. Nimrod lived some time around 2400 BC, and Semiramis lived around 820 BC. This information shows that it is impossible for Nimrod and Semiramis to have been husband and wife, they did not even live in the same century!

           Not only this, but after checking the various encyclopedias, Tammuz is never even described as an actual person! He is never mentioned as the son of Nimrod! Semiramis is never mentioned as his mother! These are all inventions of Hislop! Tammuz’s birth is never mentioned, because Tammuz was never born! He was a mythological Syrian deity, and the festival held in his honor occurred in July, not December! Therefore the very foundation of the anti-Christmas position that Christmas is really an ancient festival in honor of Tammuz, Nimrod’s son, has been proven false. Even if it could be proven that pagans worshipped the Sun god on Dec. 25^th, what would this prove about Christmas? By emphasizing a few similarities, while ignoring many differences, almost any day, rite, or custom can be linked with paganism in some way. If we showed that the Hindu immerse in the Ganges River as a purification rite, would this prove that baptism by immersion is pagan? NO! The same principle applies to the Christmas season. Every day of the week is named in honor of a pagan deity (SUNday – “sun god”; MONday – “moon god”; TUESday – “Tiw’s day”; etc.) Does this mean that worshipping God on SUNday really means you are worshipping the Sun? No, because the origin of a custom does not necessarily determine it’s present meaning.

Hislop, Two Babylons, p. 93 states, “That Christmas was originally a Pagan festival, is beyond all doubt. The time of the year, and the ceremonies, with which it is still celebrated, prove its origin. In Egypt, the son of Isis...was born at this very time ‘about the time of the winter solstice’.” Therefore, Hislop concluded that the birth of the  “son of Isis” was celebrated around December 25^th. However, when you check the reference he gives (Wilkerson, Ancient Egyptians, vol. 4, p. 405), it does not back up his claim. It does say that Isis gave birth to a son “about the time of the winter solstice,” but this was a premature birth, causing him to be “lame in his lower limbs,” and the Egyptians “celebrate the feast of his mother’s delivery just after the Vernal Equinox” – IN SPRING! Taken in context, this obviously provides no origin for a December celebration.

5. Jeremiah chapter ten condemns the Christmas tree.

            The idea that there is some pagan connection with the Christmas tree also originated from Alexander Hislop. Two Babylons, p. 98 states, “Now the great god, cut off in the midst of his power and glory, was symbolized as a huge tree, stripped of all it branches, and cut-down almost to the ground...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 (revived i.e. raised from the dead).” As proof to this statement, Hislop offers the following illustration:

 

                Hislop commented in a footnote, "In the accompanying wood-cut, the cutting off of the mighty one is symbolized by the cutting down of the tree. On an Ephesian coin (SMITH, p. 289), he is symbolized by a stag cut asunder; just as here it springs up at the side of the dead trunk." However, this image does not appear among the illustrations of Ephesian coins (pp. 289-290), nor the hundreds of other illustrations of coins offered in Smith's Classical Dictionary (1878). Likewise, "Nimrod" is mentioned only four times by Smith, Classical Dictionary, and NEVER in association with a dead stump or tree. This is an idea Hislop pulled from the 5th chapter of his imagination! Hislop further stated that this image [Fig. 27, p. 140; footnote *, p. 141] is found in Maurice, Indians Antiquities, vol. VI, p. 368 (1796).Once again, Hislop’s reference does not support his claim. This particular image doesn't even appear in any of the seven volumes (1801-1806 editions) of Indian Antiques. However, similar images do appear in volume 6 (1801 edition).

               However,  Indian Antiquities states that these were coins used in commerce between Phoenicia and the British Isles in 500 BC. According to Maurice, the inscriptions on the coins depict "the labours of Hercules, and of his hydra" (Indian Antiquities vol. 6, pp. 274-275). These images have absolutely nothing to do with either Nimrod, Tammuz, or Christmas! Hislop simply formed a conclusion that was not verified by the source material he cited. Such disregard for his source materials and wild assumptions would be comparable to a commentator 1000 years from now finding a Sacagewea coin

and assuming that the woman depicted on the coin is a god named "Liberty" which shows evidence of "Mother & Child" worship in 21st century America, then backwards interpolating this intricate fable that she was in fact a modern depiction of Semiramis (Astarte?) and Tammuz. This is the nonsense reasoning that is at the foundation of the supposed Babylonian origins of the Christmas tree.

 

            This brings us to the passage in Jeremiah 10:3-14

“Learn not the way of the heathen...the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the ax. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not. They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil...Every founder is confounded by the graven image: for his molten image is falsehood, and there is no breath in them.”

            Because of their prejudice against the Christmas season, the anti-Christmas position teaches that these verses forbid the use of the Christmas tree. There are five points about this passage that should be carefully noticed:

      

A.     The word “workman” in the text does not describe a “lumberjack” as some suppose. The same word is used in Isa. 40:19-20, to describe a “carver” i.e. “workman to prepare a “graven image.” It is also translated "engraver" or "artisan" in other passages. The Apostolic Bible Polyglot translates this as, "the work of a fabricator, even a molten casting."

B.    The tool the “workman” uses is called an “ax.” The word “ax” is found 18 times in the Bible, but the word “ax” in the Jeremiah text is a different word (maatsad). This word (maatsad) is found one other time in Isa. 44:12 where it is translated "tongs." The word in this text refers to a “carving tool.” The ERV, NIV, TLV translate this word “chisel.” The Good News Bible translates this as, "it is carved by the tools of the woodworker."

C.    The phrase "deck (yaphah) it with silver and gold" does not describe hanging ornaments, rather it is used in reference to covering an object like paint. Compare Jer. 4:30 where "deckest (adah) thee with ornaments" is different from painting the face in order to look "fair" (yaphah). John Gill commented that the phrase "deck it with silver and gold" means they "cover it with plates of silver and gold." This is they overlaid a carved wooden image with silver or gold.

D.        The language Jeremiah uses “speak not: they must needs be borne (carried)” implies that the workman carved an idol to look like a living being, yet was lifeless cf. Psalm 115:4-7. The Cambridge Bible comments, "It is clear, at any rate, that the reference is to idols."

E.        These idols were dressed in clothing. “. . . blue and purple is their clothing” (Jer. 10:9). A Christmas tree may be decorated, by no one puts clothing on a Christmas tree.

F.         Jeremiah comes right out and uses the term “graven (carved) image” (Jer. 10:14) – not a Christmas tree – but an idol carved in the likeness of man, which is plated (“decked”) with silver and gold.

            By simply applying sound, recognized, and basic rules of biblical interpretation, it is clear that Jeremiah described one who carves an idol out of a tree, and not a Christmas tree. The Christmas tree is not an ancient pagan symbol. Hasting’s Religious Encyclopedia, “Christmas customs” states that the “fir tree, cannot be traced further back than the 17^th cent., and it was not in general use before the end of the 18^th.”

            What are the fruits of the anti-Christmas position? Absolutely none. It causes confusion, hinders the gospel, and results in people being needlessly judgmental of others. There is no reason to suppose that observing Christmas, or not observing Christmas, is an essential of the Christian faith. When Christ was born at Bethlehem, there was no room for Him in the inn, but since that time millions have made room for Him in their hearts and He has brought them peace, joy, and life “more abundantly.”

The Paganism of Christmas Part 1

To many, Christmas is a special time of celebration, a time of family, a time of “peace on earth and good will toward men.”  Christmas is a season set aside to remember and honor the birth of our Saviour Jesus Christ. However, others look upon the Christmas season with great suspicion. They believe that it is not possible that Jesus Christ was born on (or around) December 25^th. They believe and teach that Christmas was originally a pagan festival in honor to the Sun god. This anti-Christmas position teaches that any involvement in the Christmas season is sinful.

As Christians seeking to serve the Lord in holiness, when we hear that a custom or holiday may be of pagan origins, it is easy to assume that particular custom is bad. Is Christmas simply an ancient pagan festival to which the name of Christ has been falsely attached? The anti-Christmas position rejects the Christmas holiday on these five basic points.

1.      Christmas is the “mass of Christ;” “mass” is a service in honor of the dead.

2.      The early church did not celebrate the birth of Christ.

3.      Jesus Christ was not born in the winter or Dec. 25^th.

4.      Christmas was originally a pagan holiday.

5.      Jeremiah chapter ten condemns the Christmas tree.

1.      Christmas is the “mass of Christ”

                The anti-Christmas position teaches that the word “mass” i.e. the Roman Catholic service is a “service in honor of the dead.” Thus, “Christ – mass” is a service in honor of a “dead Christ.” However, this is NOT the proper definition of “mass.”  Even in Catholic terminology, “mass is a memorial in which the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ are sacramentally reenacted” (Encyclopedia Britannica, “mass”). The word “mass” is not a bad word. “Mass” comes from the Latin “missa” which was originally linked with the “dismissal” of a service. The Latin word missa was carried over into Old English as maesse, possibly through the German mese for "assembly." The term "mass" later became used to describe the liturgy, receiving of sacraments, and the entire church service by both Catholics and Protestants alike. The word "Christmas" actually come from the Old English Christes maeses (first used around 1038) and was not used as one word until the mid 14th century.

2.      The early church did not celebrate the birth of Christ.

It is true that there is no record in the New Testament of the apostles celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ. However, does this make celebrating Christ’s birth wrong? We have no record in the New Testament of the apostles performing a wedding ceremony, baby dedication, or holding a “tent-revival,” but this does not make these things wrong. It is often argued, "Show me one Scripture where the apostles celebrated Christmas." If this argument were valid, then by the same token we could argue against the observance of birthdays - "Show me one Scripture where the apostles celebrated a birthday." Then we could make the absurd connection (like Jehovah's Witnesses) that the birthday cake originated from the pagan practice of making  "cakes to the queen of heaven" (Jer.7:18). This is what is known as reductio ad absurdum, or disproving a statement by showing that it inevitably leads to a ridiculous, impractical, or absurd conclusion.

The early church believed, based on Luke 3:23, that Jesus was baptized on His thirtieth birthday, which they taught was January 6^th. They called this celebration of His birth and baptism Epiphany, meaning “manifestation.” The earliest evidence of this festival is recorded by Clement of Alexandria (Stromata i., 21) circa 190 AD. Therefore, the celebration of the “birth of Christ” is a much older “holy day” than some believe. The fact that there is no direct Apostolic “command” to celebrate Christ’s birth does not make it sinful to observe Christmas. Many of the Jewish “holy days” (holidays) were observed out of custom, and not command (ex. Judges 11:40; Ester 9:19). Even Jesus, himself, observed the Jewish holy day of “Hanukkah” (John 10:22-23); a “holy day” that is not commanded within the Old Testament Law.

In the early church, there arose a sect of the Gnostics, the Adoptianist heresy, who believed that Jesus became the “Christ” at his baptism, that this was when God was “manifested” in the flesh. Therefore to emphasize that Jesus was “Christ from His birth,” it was decided to set aside a day to honor His birth alone (James Hasting, Religious Encyclopedia, “Christmas”). Research was done to determine the correct date of Christ’s birth.

John Chrysostom claimed that December 25^th was supported by the actual census/tax records of the Holy Family when they registered in Bethlehem. Chrysostom records (Homil. Diem Natal., 2; PL, 49, 552ff) that Cyril bishop of Jerusalem (348-386), requested Julius, bishop of Rome, to examine the official records of the Roman census brought from Jerusalem to Rome by the Jews in the time of Titus (circa 70 A.D.) to determine the correct date of Christ’s birth. Julius sent to Cyril a calculation in favor of December 25^th.

3. Jesus Christ was not born in the winter or Dec. 25^th.

            The real “clue” as to the time of the birth of Christ is found in Luke 1:5. According to this passage, Zacharias worked in the temple during the “course of Abia.” About six months later (Luke 1:26) Mary conceived by the Holy Ghost the Christ child. Nine to ten months later, the Christ child was born. The “course of Abia” was the eighth course of the twenty-four divisions or courses of priest that ministered in the temple (1 Chron. 24:7-19). Each course ministered from Sabbath to Sabbath, twice a year. If it can be determined which week the “course of Abia” fell, then we could calculate the time of the birth of Christ.

            The anti-Christmas position claims that the “course of Abia” (Luke 1:5) fell on the first week of June (S. Hancock, tract What’s Wrong with Christmas). This would then place the conception of Mary in December; and the birth of Christ in September, around the time of the Feast of Tabernacles. This, however, is neither historically nor factually true. Titus destroyed the temple in Jerusalem during the first week of August 70 AD (Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, p.705). According to Jewish tradition, as recorded in the Talmud (Ta’anith 29a) and Josephus (War VI, 4, 1, 5) the priestly “course of Jehoiarib” was on duty at this time. This was the first of the twenty-four courses. Counting out the courses, Sabbath to Sabbath, calculates that the “course of Abia,” to which Zacharias belonged, would have been serving during the first week of October. This would place the conception of Mary in early March; and the birth of Christ in LATE DECEMBER!  This is a conclusion based upon historical facts.

            Another objection to a winter date for the birth of Christ is the fact that the shepherds were watching over their flock “by night” (Luke 2:8). The anti-Christmas position claims that winter nights in Palestine are “very piercing” and the flocks were usually brought home by October 15^th (Alexander Hislop, Two Babylons, p. 91). However, Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, p. 187, shows from passages in the Mishna that there were flocks that “lay out all the year round,” and states, “There is no adequate reason for questioning the historical accuracy of this date (Dec. 25^th). The objections generally made rest on grounds, which seem to me historically untenable.” Evidence that some shepherds did face cold weather may be seen in Jacob’s complaint to Laban that he had suffered from frost by night (Gen. 31:40).

            The Bible does not tell us the exact date of Christ’s birth. However, there is no historical reason for us to not celebrate His birth on December 25^th.

Calling on the Name of Jesus - Chapter 9

Last quote from the book.

Chapter 9 Through His Name

p. 161

The invocation of the name of Jesus IS NOT simply an accompanying circumstance of water baptism. The spoken name of Jesus in baptism is the MEANS by which the believer receives the remission of sins. This does not suggest any sort of enchantment, incantation or magical use of the name of Jesus, like abracadabra (a serious charge from the Calvinists and no-formula proponents). Rather, there is required a genuine and sincere faith in the name of Jesus Christ. This is clearly illustrated in the account of the seven sons of Sceva.

I will be getting in the first print of books on Monday. The book is 182 pages long. It contains several charts/illustrations. There are over 100 various Bible translations, lexicons, dictionaries, commentaries, and reference works quoted. The price of the book is $12.99 (plus $3 shipping/handling). If you are interested in a copy of the book, please email  me and I will give you more information. Thanks again for your interest.

Calling on the Name of Jesus - Chapter 8

Chapter 8 The Baptism of John

p. 148

The use of water as a representation of spiritual cleansing was already familiar to Israel. Dipping in water, as an emblematical washing, was commanded in the law for the priesthood (cf. Exodus 30:20-21; 40:12). Also, Gentile proselytes who were immersed in water into the Jewish faith were considered to be a little child new born (cf. John 3:3; 10). However, John’s baptism was neither an Old Testament washing nor proselyte immersion. John’s baptism was not an immersion into the Jewish faith; rather it was an immersion for the Jews to prepare themselves to receive the Messiah and His kingdom. Likewise, John’s baptism was not New Testament Christian baptism which was commissioned after the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Matthew 28:19; Acts 2:38). For this sake, those who had once been baptized unto John’s baptism, once the New Testament church had been established (Acts 2:1f) had to be re-baptized “in the name of Jesus.”

Calling on the Name of Jesus - Chapter 7

Chapter 7 Calling on His Name

pg. 135

Acts 22:16, calling on His name, harmonizes perfectly with 1 Corinthians 6:11 “in the name of the Lord Jesus” in that the effect of wash away thy sins is brought about by the UTTERANCE of His name! This is exactly what the participle of means (by calling) in Acts 22:16 indicates. Thus, calling on His name in Acts 22:16 has the same meaning as “in the name of Jesus” in reference to baptism (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5). That is, calling on His name is a reference to the name being CALLED OVER the baptismal candidate i.e. getting called over you His name or by calling over you His name.

 

Want to mention again, that there are over 100 Bible translations, lexicons, dictionaries, commentaries, & reference works cited in the book. This book is designed to be a quick reference guide for anyone studying the subject of baptism "in the name of Jesus Christ."

Calling on the Name of Jesus - Chapter 6

Chapter 6: Lexical Definition of "In the Name of"

pg. 110

Those who argue strongly for a background of rabbinical usage overlook the fact that eis to onoma is not found in the LXX version of the Old Testament. Therefore, it could be argued that Rabbinical (Talmudic) usage was influenced by the common commercial language of Hellenistic (Greek-speaking) Jews. The fact that the majority of the New Testament was either written by a Gentile (Luke) or was written to predominately Gentile congregations, would suggest that eis to onoma should be understood with a Hellenistic (Greek) commercial background. The Gentile converts would not have been familiar with the Rabbinical (Talmudic) usage of eis to onoma. However, it is apparent from Acts and the Epistles that eis to onoma was a phrase that would have been common to the intended readers. In the end, the debate is superfluous because both the Hellenistic and Rabbinical usage of eis to onoma indicate a mentioning or verbal pronunciation of the name.

Hopefully this will spark some more interest in the book. I've had many people contact me with pre-order information. Sounds like I'm going to be busy shipping books in November!!

 

Calling on the Name of Jesus - Chapter 5

Chapter 5: "In the Name of" not "By the Authority of"

pg. 81-82

If baptism was to have simply been by the authority of Jesus Christ, don’t you think one time in the Scriptures the word exousia would have been used? Never do we read of baptism in the exousia of Jesus Christ. Rather, the phrase “in the name of Jesus Christ” is used, which refers to the naming of the name Jesus Christ upon the baptismal candidate.

Short quote, but hope it sparks your interest.

Got a call from the publisher today, I should have the first print of books on Monday!!

Calling on the Name of Jesus - Chapter 4

Ok, this will be the last quote of the day. This will get me up to speed on quoting two chapters a day. There are nine chapters to the book, so, I'm having to make multiple quotes on certain days.

Here is a quote from Chapter 4 of my book Calling on the Name of Jesus. These are actually quotes from different ends of the chapter. The first quote is one of the opening statements from chapter 4, and the last quote is actually one of the last statements from chapter 4. So, hopefully this will spark your interest to know the context between the quotes.

Chapter 4: "In the Name of" i.e. "Calling on the Name"

pg. 57

Idioms are not subject to the normal rules of grammar, and cannot be understood literally. Some common idioms of the English language are: “Don’t have a cow,” “Bee in your bonnet,” “As easy as pie, “Bitten off more than he could chew,” etc. Idioms are understood by their common usage and context. An idiom is defined by its usage in a particular language. To understand the idiomatic meaning of a phrase, one should find as many examples of the idiom and examine the consistent usage of the phrase. The meaning of an idiom is the same in any context. Understand we are talking about the Biblical meaning and usage of the phrase in the name of.

pg. 72,

This understanding is based upon the consistent and natural use of the phrase in the name of used throughout the Bible. Here there is a simple and perfectly intelligible explanation, derived from a consistent use of the Scriptures, of the expression in the name of. There is nothing subtle or abstruse in this interpretation; and whatever further meaning may be justified in finding in the phrase, verbal pronunciation or orally invoking the name at least must not be excluded or neglected. The Biblical meaning of the phrase in the name of is NAMING, CALLING UPON the name. Dr. J. A. Robinson in his study of “in the name of” in The Journal of Theological Studies (1906) concluded:

“… the baptizer acted authoritatively in that Name: he had a right to INVOKE the Name, and to bring into play the power which accompanied the NAMING of the Name … enough, I hope, has been said to shew that what appears to be the most natural translation of the Greek is capable of reasonable and adequate interpretation, if we approach it in the light of the prevalent conceptions of the earliest age.”11

Thanks again for your interest. Continue checking for more quotes from Calling on the Name of Jesus.

Jason L. Weatherly

 

Calling on the Name of Jesus - Chapter 3 quote

Moving right along, here is a quote from Chapter 3 of my book, Calling on the Name of Jesus.

Chapter 3, The Great Commission

pg. 47-48

The internal evidence of both Matthew 28:19 and Luke 24:47 shows that these are parallel or synonymous passages. Matthew 28:19 declares that the Apostles were to teach all nations. Luke 24:47 records this as preach … among all nations. The phrase remission of sins in Luke 24:47 is equal to baptizing them in Matthew 28:19. Therefore the phrase in His name, in Luke 24:47, is synonymous or parallel with the phrase in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost used in Matthew 28:19.

[CHART]

Matthew 28:19 and Luke 24:47 are identical passages. This is one commission recorded by two different authors. They are synonymous verses. As, the no-formula proponent states, “These are different accounts of the same thing.” To deny this is to deny plain Bible hermeneutics. Thus, the phrase in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is synonymous with the phrase in His Name. This is why the book of Acts church obeyed the command of Matthew 28:19 & Luke 24:47 by baptizing “in the name of Jesus Christ.” The phrase in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost describes the one Name; His Name i.e. the name of Jesus. Jesus is the name of the Father. Jesus is the name of the Son. Jesus is the name of the Holy Ghost.

The section marked as "[CHART]" indicates that in the book there is a chart separating the two paragraphs from each other. Want to see the chart? Well, you'll have to purchase a copy of the book when they come available. Thanks for lookin'

Jason L. Weatherly

Calling on the Name of Jesus - Chapter 2 quote

Here is a quote from Chapter 2 of my book Calling on the Name of Jesus.

Chapter 2: No-Formula or Silent Baptism

p. 33,

Alexander Campbell affirmed the following statement in the Campbell-Rice Debate:

“What are the essentials of baptism? … 3) the divine formula of words, into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit … A failure in any one of these may affect the validity of baptism.”18

Alexander Campbell, one of the founders of the church of Christ denomination, actually taught that one of the things that makes New Testament baptism valid is the proper baptismal formula! Campbell went on to state:

“In the third place, I proceed to show that we have most explicit proof that God forgives sins for the Name’s sake of his Son, or when the Name of Jesus Christ is named upon us in immersion.”19

Alexander Campbell fully affirmed that “into the name of” referred to words spoken by the baptizer!

“… in baptism there is a real transition from one state to another, clearly indicated by the phrase ‘into the name,’ &c. … This is consummated by the words ‘I immerse thee into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’ Words so solemn and significant as these, are not to be expressed without a most intelligent consideration, and proper preparation on the part of the penitent.”20

Jason L. Weatherly

Calling on the Name of Jesus - Chapter 1 quote

Here is the first quote from my book Calling on the Name of Jesus.

Chapter 1: The Baptismal Formula in Church History

p. 19-20,

Michael Servetus (A.D. 1511 – 1553) taught that the entire Godhead was in the one person of Jesus Christ, and that baptism should be “in the name of Jesus.”

“In Jesus Christ, therefore, is the fulness of the Godhead bodily, as Paul teaches; and Servetus, with his usual keen perception, noticed that the Apostles, when baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ alone, actually fulfilled the Lord’s last injunction to baptize all nations ‘in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit’ for in Christ all these are One.”31

John Calvin petitioned the tribunals to sentence Michael Servetus to burn at the stake, as a heretic for re-baptism and for publishing his book On the Errors of the Trinity.

“After much argument and mutual vituperation, the court found Servetus guilty of anti-Trinitarianism and anabaptism, 26 October 1553, following the provisions of the Justinianian law, and condemned him to be burned at the stake.”32

Jason L. Weatherly

Calling on the Name of Jesus

This is officially my first blog! Please excuse the generic look of this blog, as all of that will change in the next few weeks. In the meantime, enjoy...

Almost twenty years ago, I was baptized in the precious name of Jesus Christ at the age of 17. This experience truly changed my life! Over the past sixteen (16) years of teaching the Bible, water baptism "in the name of Jesus Christ" has been an important part of my ministry.

Almost a year ago, I began writing a book on the subject of water baptism "in the name of Jesus Christ." My book deals specifically with orally pronouncing the name of Jesus in baptism. Over 100 Bible translations, lexicons, commentaries and reference works are cited in my book Calling on the Name of Jesus.

Currently the book is at the publisher being printed. I expect my first shipment of books any day!! I am very excited about having written my first book on a subject that I hold so dear to my heart. In anticipation of receiving the first prints, I am going to post a random quote from a chapter in my blog. Of course once the first print arrives, I'll have an official release date, and announce it right here on these blogs.

Keep checking back for quotes from the book, and thank you for stopping by!

Jason L. Weatherly

Disclaimer: This blog is by no means associated with the Weather Channel, or any news weather report. We don't report the actual weather here at this blog. If you were linked to this blog expecting to read an extended weather forecast or anything of that nature; then I apologize, but would ask you to please read through my blog anyway. My last name may be Weatherly, but that doesn't mean that I can foretell, forecast, or by any means control the weather!!