THE CHRISTMAS LIE: It's Bigger Than You Think

Revelation 9:11 

And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon. (Apollo)

APOLLYON - Spelling Variant of "Apollo" - Anchor Bible Dictionary




Ephesians 4:11-13 

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ:

Professional "excuse makers" called "Apologists" have found a permanent home among "Christians" in a field called "Apologetics".  People who "specialize" in "Apologetics" are called "Apologists".  Those "defending Christmas" as "Christianity" are here called "Apollo-gists" to better describe what they are doing.

However, the term itself, despite it's wide acceptance, is not an "incidental" development in "Christianity. It is a secular term and not used in that fashion in the New Testament. All of the allusions to "Apologia" (from where the term is derived)  in the New Testament, are simply references to the action of doing it. Not to an "official title" (FOR IT). The reason that is the case is because in the Greek legal system, there was the prosecutor who brought charges, and there was the "Apologist" (meaning the defense attorney) who "defended" his client against them.  It was the legal technical equivalent to our concept of a  "criminal defense attorney".

The New Testament was not "beyond" borrowing secular terms. For example, the term "Apostle" is such a term, which referred to the concept in our words of "emissary" or an "ambassador". But ironically, "Apologist" was one term, the New Testament intentionally NEVER employed. There were NO New Testament "Apologists". Because, it was not a "Term" the New Testament ever equated as something actually "appropriate" for what it "stood for". It did not need a "professional" criminal excuse maker, or a "criminal defense attorney", because no "crime" was to ever be "committed". (And if it were, "repentance" was the solution, not a "professional Apologist" to "excuse it")   But what came AFTERWARDS, certainly did.

The term "Apologist" today, has attracted a variety of very unsavory characters. Some of whom are blatantly dishonest, emotionally toxic, and embarrassingly  Neanderthalic. (Some self-appointed "Apologists") spend a majority of their time on the internet, simply insulting people, and thinking that is a "debate".

In fact, if you ever are in a "debate", serial insulting, is a pretty good indication, the person resorting to it, has already lost, and has nothing "substantial"  left to say. Thus the "insults". (You don't need them when you are "winning" the "debate")
Obviously, these kinds of "Apologists" are making a "great impression" on "Atheists", who use them as "canon fodder", for advertisements of "Christian" ignorance and maliciousness. (Such "Apologists" are doing as much harm, as good)
In common internet interaction, "Apologetics" has become almost synonymous with "aggressive stupidity" and "thuggish" dishonest behavior, in servitude to "false religion". So embarrassingly bad, even those who were academically trained to work in the field themselves, are almost themselves, now denouncing it, or at least publicly complaining, about how it has literally become, a public "embarrassment" (even to themselves).

There are "Apologists" for Mormonism, "Apologists" for Catholicism, "Apologists" for Islam, and "Apologists" for just about any other "belief system" in the general category of "theism".  And, unfortunately, some of those bearing the name "Christian", are very often found to be,  the worst among all of them.

"Apologists" are not a Biblically ordained, Christ-commissioned  ministry, to begin with.  The list of Biblical ministries include, Apostles, Prophets, Pastor-teachers and Evangelists. There is no such title, as "Apologist" in that list.

There was no need in the New Testament for "Apologists", to serve as "Excuse-makers" for deceit, dishonesty and moral deficiency, or "criminal defense attorneys" for "criminal behavior", done in the name of "religion".

This strange contradictory behavior is nowhere more on "display", than with "Christmas" "Apollo-gists". (Emphasis on "Apollo") Who openly use intentional "Deceit" as a "tool" of their "trade". (They really actually do this) That observation is not "hyperbole". But a literal real actual observation.




One rather infamous example of blatant fraud, were the claims "Christmas APOLLO-gists" made concerning "Martin Luther".  Years ago, several Protestant sources began to post comments made by "Martin Luther" against "Christmas".

In response, "Apollo-gists" began filling up the internet with (1) Pictures of Martin Luther doing "Christmas" (2) His "sermon schedule" where he "preached on Christmas" and (3)  his "Christmas sermons". (And then finally either direct "claims" or "implications" Luther said no such thing), When he most certainly did. And most ridiculous of all, actually crediting him, with the "invention" of the "Christmas tree".

The last claim, featured full blown illustrations, with Luther sitting adoringly in front of his alleged "invention". (This "illustration" was even "featured" on the front page of Christmas "Apollo-getics" websites as "proof" to Christians, Luther did this)

This "Fraudulent Picture" was produced in the 1800s and is completely "fictitious"

But a little (just a little) research would have discovered, (1) the "picture" was created in the 1800s as "propaganda" (2) His "sermon schedule" included "Sundays" that just happened to fall on "Christmas" (3) His "Christmas sermons" were sermons he would have preached anyway because it was a "sermon day", that "fell" on Christmas.  There were no "special Christmas services" in which he "preached" a "Christmas sermon".

And "Luther" was so adamant and publicly against "Christmas", he was actually accused of "causing a violent riot" over it, which got him in serious trouble with Frederick the Elector, and very nearly got him arrested.

SEE:  Antichrist For Dummies-Part 29 - Rev.11

So these "Apollo-gists" were simply  engaging in intentional "Disinformation". And none of them ever point out, as with all reformers, Luther himself, went through an evolution on that topic (like all other topics), and his rejection of Christmas, was his final position. (Not the "transient" position)


When they get "called" on things like this, they do not "fix it" and correct their presentation (which is what most people would do), instead they either completely ignore it, or get angry, aggressive and hostile, and do not "change" their information, until it simply "loses credibility" with the public they are trying to influence. Only then does it "change". No "repentance". No apologies. And "no change" until there is "no choice" left to do otherwise.  That is the "typical" behavior of an "APOLLO-gist".

Because they have been called out on the "historicity" of their claims about "Luther", what they do now, is simply stick the word "Legend" on the front of it, and keep passing it around anyway (as though it were "true"), when they know full well what they are "passing around" is "Disinformation" (that is intentionally creating a FALSE IMPRESSION).  But they do not care that it is no more true than "George Washington chopped down a cherry tree", or Mary miraculously made "Easter Eggs", or there were 7 sleepers in a cave like "Rip Van Winkle".

They are intentionally using "deceit" to push this public "brainwashing" campaign. That is what "APOLLO-gists" do. They are very often, openly using INTENTIONAL public deceit. Does the "real" "Christ" need someone to "Lie" for him? (No) The "fake one" does. [The one born on December 25th]

Luther is not the only "Protestant Reformer" to suffer this kind of complete intentional "Disinformation Campaign" at the hands of "Apollo-gists". They do exactly the same kind of thing with "Calvin" and "Spurgeon" as well (who were also both open vocal critics of "Christmas").

"Apollo-gists" routinely turn all three of these, into "poster children" for "Christmas" as though "nothing ever happened", and they had "nothing" to say about it's error. (When the truth was precisely and exactly the "opposite" of that intentionally fraudulent "presentation")




When a "Christmas APOLLO-gist" tells you "Christmas" is not "pagan", it is important to understand the "Definition" of terms that are being "used". 

Because if you define "Christian" as anything someone does who claims to be "Christian", then a lot of things immediately become "Christian" by definition. (Including "Nicolaitans" Rev.2)

For example, the "Holocaust" would be "a 'Christian' thing".

"Slavery" would be a "Christian" thing. Jim Jones and the "mass suicide" at the Jones-town, "people's temple" was a "Christian" thing. And you could arbitrarily add to that same list, such things as "Drug Cartels","the mafia", the "KKK", "organized crime", pedophile rings", "sex trafficking", "contract-killing", "murder", "lynching", "assassination" and even "terrorism". (All done by people who have called themselves "Christian"). And in some of these cases, even claiming they did what they did, precisely BECAUSE of, or even FOR "Christianity". What "invalidated" those claims?

It was (and still is) a completely common thing for "Mafiosos" and "Drug king-pins" to donate "tithes" to their "Churches" and in some cases, even pay for the building of new "Churches". So if you "define" "Christian" to "include" anything, that anyone who "claims" to be a "Christian, ever does", then that is what you GET. It is a list that never stops growing, and will creep into a lot of very ugly, very dangerous, very criminal, patently "non-Christian" things. And when it is over, the term "Christian" will mean "nothing" at best, and actually become synonymous with everything "evil" on earth.

Calling something "Christian", doesn't make it "magically" Christian (no matter what it is), just because someone calls it that.  And it really doesn't matter how esteemed the "Christian leader" is, who does that too. There have been Popes that have declared "genocides", "inquisition torture" and "Nazis" "Christian". And there have been famous preachers, who have done the same with the "Klan". (In both cases, that didn't make it so). There was a "higher standard" that existed "objectively" beyond them both, called "the Scriptures", that "invalidated" both erroneous claims.(And as demonstrated in history)

Virtually every atrocity in western civilization (apart from the French revolution) had claimed the title "Cristian", no matter how "horrific" the act was.  (Because western civilization itself, as a whole, historically, was "legally" Christian, meaning not "Muslim", and not "Hindu")

However, things are not defined in "theological terms" by what "most people" do, no matter how many of them "claim" to "be Christian", while they do it. And that theological reality, includes the subject of "Christmas".

If you define "Christian" the way "APOLLO-gists" do, "diamonds" would become "gravel", simply because that is what "most" stones are. But, there are "objective" definitions of what the term "Christian" means, theologically. And it doesn't come from what "most people do". There is "primary source documentation" that comes with the "Christian faith", that define what those words are supposed to "mean", objectively. And in that "primary source documentation", "Christian" is actually defined as a "minority" of people. In contrast to a much larger group of people who will also "claim" to be that, but will patently not be.(Matthew 7:21-23)

The "APOLLO-gist" will openly use the very "Definition" of "Christian", that Matthew 7:21-23, condemns.



It is "Christian", because "Christians" do it.

It WAS Christian, because "Christians" DID IT!

QUOTE: "...arose entirely from the efforts of early Latin Christians.." END QUOTE
The fact that "Early Latin Christians" did something, (actually anything at all) is an irrelevant observation. They did a lot of weird stuff, including fondling the flesh of rotting corpses to "absorb" it's "spiritual power". And identifying those "rotting corpses" as a "Saint" because someone would spontaneously go into "convulsions" when near it. (Details of this, are covered in the series on Revelation,"Antichrist For Dummies" )
A lot of other very obscene and gross things could be redundantly added to that list, but the point is, once again, the "argument" is nothing more, than a "self-reference".

There are only 3 options available, (1)  "Early Latin Christians" got what they did, directly FROM CHRIST and his APOSTLES [as evidenced by "Primary Source Documentation"] (2) They got it from PAGANS. (3) They were completely "original" and just invented it themselves (completely out of thin air), and it just "accidentally" overlaps everything the pagans were already doing. (And is distinguishable as "original" through some very very very fine "hair-splitting", and semantics) There are "no other" possible options. SO it is a fairly simple deduction that must be made.

"Christmas APOLLO-gists" want you to "believe" in option 3.  But the problem is, that argument has already lost every "real Christian" on earth. Because "real Christians" that actually follow "Christ" (as in the Matthew 7:21-23 sense of the word "Christian")  do not really care what 4th and 5th century "Latins" did (wrong). (Of which there is plenty to choose from) "Christians" do not "follow" 4th and 5th century "Latins". And "Christians" would have no more interest in the deviant practices of 4th and 5th century "Latins" than they would 4th and 5th century "Bulgarians" or "Muscovites" or "Africans" or  "Philippinos" or Norwegian "Laplanders". Unless of course, you are suggesting some sort of "racial" supremacy?

Nor would any "real Christian" care what the "personal motivations" of 4th & 5th century "Latins" would be for their "inventions", for better, or for worse. Whether it was because their mommas dropped them on their head when they were "babies", or whether it was to "appease the volcano gods". The problem is that Option 3, is not Option 1. And Option 1 is the only option, that really "Validates" the practice.

In fact, in a very strange way, advancing Option 3, is actually an OPEN ADMISSION it is not OPTION 1 !!! (That itself is quite enough, to "close the case" for "real Christians")  Option 3, is not Option 1. Therefore the case is closed, by admission.

Do you want something that arose
entirely from CHRIST and his APOSTLES?

Or something that AROSE ENTIRELY
from 4th and 5th century LATINS?

If you actually have any trouble answering that question, you are not a "Christian" (in the Matthew 7:21-23 sense of the word), nor will you be "saved" (in the Matthew 7:21-23 sense of the word) "saved". You are following 4th century "Latins", not "Christ". (and now you have a "choice" to make, between them) Choose wisely because your "choice" may be an eternal one. (Rev.9:11, 11:10)


HOW "EARLY" ...was "EARLY"?   (As in "Early Latin Christians") ?


The phrase, "Early Latin Christians" is simply a false propaganda term. It is like referring to "Space Shuttle Astronauts" as "Early Pilgrim Americans".  The distance in time, is almost identical !  So, if you would "laugh" at someone using the phrase "Early Pilgrim Americans" to refer to "Space Shuttle Astronauts", then that is precisely how you should greet the the phrase "Early Latin Christians", when it is used


HOW "CHRISTIAN"... was "CHRISTIAN"? (In "Early Latin Christians")


And here is the final "trick" in the "claim", and that is, the "definition" of WHAT IS actually "Christian". Because if "by Christian", one is referring to "Roman Syncretists", then you are brought right back to the origin of "Pagan". (Without question) Because that was the very essence of their "theology".

But, if "by Christian", you are referring to the community of Jewish faith, that produced the New Testament documentation, then these "Early Latin Christians", were not only not "Early", they were essentially, not "Christian" either.(Despite the claim of the title)


What is "really" being referred to in the phrase "Early Latin Christian", is really a form of "opposite speak", that is being used disingenuously to refer to "Late Roman Syncretists".  

There actually were "Early Latin Christians", who were actually both "Early" and "Christian", but unfortunately, they were "eliminated" as "heretics" after the Nicene council. (None of which was actually represented, by even so much as a single "Christian" Bishop. Not a single one.)

1Timothy 3:1-4 

This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

All those men at the "Nicene Council" who were "calling themselves" "Bishops" were to a "T", "celibate" "Nicolaitans", who were (by their own definition), not part of the "New Testament" community of faith. (Which "required" a "Bishop" to be a married man with a family)  The people at the "Nicene council" were "anti-Bishops". (The "opposite" of a "Bishop") and the "Christ" they were formulating, was an opposite of "Christ"... an "Anti-Christ".

This is not simply a "deduction from Scripture", it is also attested to in Rome's own "Church history", in a document known as "The Chronicle of Zuqnin".  There it is documented that the common "Christian" in Antioch, under the rule of these so-called "Bishops" considered them to be not much better than terrorist thugs, and they were not considered even really "Christian", AT ALL.  The monk responsible for preserving these comments was "rebuked".

When you get to statements from the Nicene council itself, you can clearly see their "departure"  (apostacy) from Apostolic faith was fully intentional, and cmotivated by Roman anti-Semitism. appeared an unworthy thing that in the celebration of this most holy feast we should follow the practice of the Jews, ,. ..Let us then have nothing in common with the detestable Jewish crowd; for we have received from our Saviour a different way. A course at once legitimate and honorable lies open to our most holy religion.

If you "define" the term "Christian", as the people and writings of the "New Testament" (as the reference point for the term), also known as the "real" Apostolic community, then how does that "define" these "Late Roman Syncretist" innovators? Does it even "define" them as "Christian", at all? 

That is an "important question". Not for the sake of the "Apollo-gists" argument above (because, that "argument" was over after it was "admitted" "Christmas" arose "Entirely" from "Late Roman Syncretists", a/k/a "Early Latin Christians"). But it is important as a final determination, for defining what is really meant by "Christian". (And whether you ARE actually, one or not)

To understand what "Apollo-gists" are calling "Christian" in the claim above, it is important to place their definition in historical "context", with all the "other things" that these alleged "Christians" were also "simultaneously" doing.

When you do that, you very clearly see, that at the very same time, these "Late Roman Syncretists" (i.e, so-called "Early Latin Christians"), were coming up with "Christmas", they were also "exchanging" the "truth of God", for a lie. (Rom.1)

They were literally changing out the meaning of terms, for their very "opposites". And this "exchange" is not a "speculation". Those "exchanges" IN TERMINOLOGY are still in "existence" TO THIS VERY DAY.  (Just as you see in the very phrase itself, "Early Latin Christian")  If a "Late Roman Syncretist" is "magically" changed into it's exact and precise opposite as an "Early Latin Christian", then what do you think the "opposite" of "Christ-mass" really is ???



"the Church father Origen was proclaiming it heathenish to celebrate Christ's birthday...The day was not even known to be Christ's birthday. It was merely an excuse to continue the customs of the pagan Saturnalia." 

-(Gerard and Patricia Del Re, The Christmas Almanac p. 20).

Origen denounces the idea of  the syncretistic pagan celebration of Chirst’s birthday as though he were an ungodly Pharaoh. 245 AD,  

- "Natal Day", The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913.

Despite the "claim" by "Apollo-gists" "early Latin Christians" "invented" this ritual out of "thin air", looking for the date of his "death" (or "birth", or "conception", or "whatever") of Christ, ...ORIGEN was already familiar with it, and he made a note of it on two counts; (1) It was an "excuse" to continue the Roman "Saturnalia" and (2) It was "Syncretism" with "Pagan"/"heathenism". (Oh yeah, and that it was (3) "Ungodly")

So when you see an "Apollo-gist" claim it was "completely Christian" and had nothing to do with "Paganism" (He should have TOLD both ORIGEN (254 AD) and the Catholic Encyclopedia) that.

The "desire" to "find something" there "belies" the fact, they were "looking" for something to "begin with", when they shouldn't have.  And, secondly, finding alleged "dates" doesn't justify or excuse the "worship ritual" plopped on top of the "magical date".  It is not justified and "excused" by their "motivation", no matter what the "claimed" motivation for it, was. It was still a blatant major "deviation" from Apostolic tradition (even if you assume everything they claim was true).  And that patently, was not the case.







Since "Christmas" is the "biggest celebration" in THE WHOLE WORLD, and is responsible for the most significant event in finance, culture, climate science, religion and even politics, (and it's influence is growing from even this) of the entire year, every year, on earth. Nothing compares to it anywhere on the entire PLANET.  But... it is not "Biblical" in origin, what (within the Bible), is it?  How is it "categorized" and "classified"? (In Biblical texts?)

It would be unimaginable, that such a mammoth "event" would not ever be referenced (either good or bad) even in the "slightest" way, anywhere in the ENTIRE 27 books, nor anywhere in the hundreds of "prophecies", anywhere in the New Testament, AT ALL?

It is always "assumed" that NO TEXT, anywhere in the ENTIRE New Testament, ever has any reference to "Christmas" (because it is certainly not practiced or commanded there).  But that doesn't mean that therefore, nothing else in the New Testament EVER refers to it. In fact, that "assumption" is quite factually wrong.

But the "truth is", it's much worse, than simply wrong. It's actually "suppressed".  It is one thing to "be wrong" about something. But it quite another to KNOW you are wrong, and actually go to great lengths to actually HIDE that information from the public, that demonstrates you ARE WRONG.
And what is literally observed among "Apollo-gists", is that they are (1) "Wrong" (2) They "Know" they are "wrong" and (3) They "Hide" (intentionally hide) information, and distort, and EVEN intentionally FABRICATE, false information, to "cover-up" this problem. (As illustrated in the samplings above)  They will just openly LITERALLY and KNOWINGLY LIE. (Without "conscience")

"Spiritually" this is an "extremely" dangerous practice. It is unconditionally associated with "Eternal Damnation" in the New Testament. (All on it's own right)  The New Testament NEVER grants a "permission slip" to openly, intentionally, and willfully LIE about things, in the name of "Religion", or on the behalf of "God".

Revelation 21:8 

But ...all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

"Lying" is certainly a major part of it's "propagation" and "practice" (not just with "children"), but even among and with "adults"? But "lying" is "human nature". People can lie about a lot of things, that alone is certainly not unique.  But what is "unique" is the relationship of "Dependency" that "lying" has WITH "Christmas".  No other "celebration" of the year ("pagan or otherwise", of which there are many), relies DIRECTLY on as much "Lying", as does "Christmas".  It stands "unique" in that regard from all others.

In fact, "Christmas" is the only "celebration" of the entire year, that actually CELEBRATES LYING as part of it's very own "Ritual".  And despite all this "ritualized" LYING that goes on at "Christmas", that alone does not "explain" WHAT IT IS?

Here is where the answer to that question, then becomes both "unavoidable" and "unmistakable".   If you "look for an EXCUSE", that is all you will ever find.  But if you look for "The Truth", you will accept "No Excuses", for the absence of it. (And when you do that, as Christ himself said, "If you seek, you WILL find".)



You will hear "contradictory" things about "Christmas". "Christmas" is an "old practice", "Christmas" is a new practice, "Christmas" is a "pagan practice". "Christmas" is a "Christian practice". And all of the answers to those questions, all  without exception, come down to simply how you define those terms, and whether or not, those "definitions" are "accurate".

So when you read an article ABOUT CHRISTMAS, before you begin reading, you should seek to understand the AUTHOR'S "vocabulary" and the "definitions" he or she will be using to write his or her article. Because it is the "definition" that will write, the "article".

If you use "Biblical definitions" to research the "question", then you will end up with some amazing "answers", but they will not sound at all like the ones, that "Apollo-gists" are busy "spreading across the world".

The "basic truth" that "Christmas" was not done, not practiced, not commanded in the New Testament... that 1 basic truth... will lead you into all of the many texts that exist within the Bible concerning it.

Because by "acknowledging" that 1 simple, basic, factual truth, (which all the "Apollo-gestics" in the world cannot "hide"), the entire "Bible" opens up like an encyclopedia on the subject, of "Christmas".

1.  What does the Bible say about "Worship rituals that are not commanded"?

2. What does the Bible say about "Following the traditions of men, instead of God"?

3. What does the Bible say about adopting "Gentile forms of worship ritual"?

4. What does the Bible say about "Syncretism" (blending the worship of "foreign gods")

5. What does the Bible say about a "Future false worship of a False Christ"?

6. What does the Bible say about inclusion of "Idolatry" to worship God?

7. What does the Bible say about "The World" and the "Christ" it will follow?

8. What does the Bible say about "The commercial use of RELIGION for Money?"

9. What does the Bible say about "Christians" who will not be "Christians"?

10. What does the Bible say about "Ministers" who are "seducers" or "antichrists"?

11. What does the Bible say about "religious  leaders" who intentionally use "deceit"?

12. What does the Bible say about "being deceived" by "false religion"?

Without "opposite-speak" to "protect Christmas" from "scrutiny", these texts all find their targets, with "Christmas" (every single one of them), and there are "hundreds" upon "hundreds" upon "hundreds" of them. In fact, before it's over, you will discover the bulk of texts in the Bible, are "applicable" to the "subject".  Because "false religious practice" was a "main theme" of Biblical authors, from Genesis to Revelation.

And what most of the public doesn't understand, all of these hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of texts, actually end up describing, condemning and prophesying about the "same" one, historically connected, continuously unbroken, stream of "religion".  The names change, but the "family tree" remains virtually "unbroken".
There is "no honest question" that Biblical authors saw a "continuity" to "false religion", that they intentionally traced back to the story of "Gan Eden" in the book of Genesis, and carry forward, into the book of Revelation. It turns out, the purpose of the "Gan Eden" narrative, had a real historical reference, to ancient practices in Persia, that are still with us, into this very day. (In our current modern Christmas ritual no less) And this prophecy has a direct connection to those very practices. (Apollo-gists" have nowhere to go with this reference, other than to just ignore it, or dismiss it)

The subject of "Christmas" is not just in the Bible by way of "generic references" to false religious practices and false gods and false Christs (in general), there are very specific actual REFERENCES to the practice, both "in the past" and "in the future" (by way of prophecy)  in the Bible. And those "references" also identify "Christmas" as being discussed by all those other (hundreds of texts generally) as well, a result.

So when "Apollo-gist" begin their "defense" (i.e., excuse making) for "Christmas" (and it's un-commanded worship ritual, and it's un-commissioned religion, of a "substitute" Christ, who never existed), they are literally having to "excuse" the entire Bible. (And "re-interpret" virtually every text within it) to make that obvious "distortion" "work". (And they "can't" really honestly do that, so... some don't even try) They just "settle" for "lying", instead. And that is how you KNOW, you are listening to an "Apollo-gist".