The Occult Origins of Santa

×

Error message

The spam filter installed on this site is currently unavailable. Per site policy, we are unable to accept new submissions until that problem is resolved. Please try resubmitting the form in a couple of minutes.

Christmas is a dual holiday. On the same day the birth of Jesus and the ideals of Christian charity are celebrated, though there is a simultaneous holiday which been foisted on us by occult forces who exercise increasing influence in our world. The other Christmas involves silly myths which include a fat man in a red suit with magical powers who lives in the North Pole.

Santa is an anagram for Satan. Santa has no Christian associations at all, but is rather the survival of the ancient worship of the god of the underworld, in the form of Saturn.

The origin of Christmas is to be found in the 4 pagan seasonal holidays that coincide with the ancient cycles of the dying-god, symbolized by the Sun. They correspond to the two solstices and equinoxes: Christmas, Easter, St. John’s Day and Halloween.

The dying-god, as god of the underworld, was the form Lucifer was worshipped by cultures outside of the Judeo-Christian tradition. He was found among many different peoples in ancient times, according to different names depending on the cultures. The Egyptians worshipped Osiris, the Canaanites Baal, the Babylonians Bel or Marduk, the Greeks Dionysus and the Persians Mithras.

The dying-god was equated with Venus, whose original Latin name was Lucifer. Additionally, he was also represented by the Sun, and equated with the planet Saturn, “the nocturnal Sun”, to represent his darker aspects.  As god of the Underworld, he presided over the souls of the dead.  And, because primitive paganism elevated this evil to the level of a god, it was regarded as necessary to also render him worship. This involved rites of apotropaic magic, meaning to avert evil. While the good god required the performance of good, the evil god demanded the performance of evil. Therefore, to prevent his evil, or to direct it, or that of his minions among the demons, against ones enemies, it was necessary to perform evil sacrifices, the most powerful of which was the slaying of a child.

Thus, the Israelites were also accused of sacrificing their own children to the Canaanite god Moloch, another title for Baal. Moloch was identified with Saturn, whom the Babylonians regarded as the “star of the Sun.”[1]  The Greek myth of Kronos swallowing his children was compared to the Carthaginian worship of Moloch, or Saturn, by the ancient historian Diodorus:

Among the Carthaginians there was a brazen statue of Saturn putting forth the palms of his hands bending in such a manner toward the earth, as that the boy who was laid upon them, in order to be sacrificed, should slip off, and so fall down headlong into a deep fiery furnace. Hence it is probable that Euripides took what he fabulously relates concerning the sacrifice in Taurus, where he introduces Iphigenia asking Orestes this question: “But what sepulchre will me dead receive, shall the gulf of sacred fire me have?” The ancient fable likewise that is common among all the Grecians, that Saturn devoured his own children, seems to be confirmed by this law among the Carthaginians.[2]

The origin of Christmas is the Saturnalia, an ancient Roman festival in honor of the deity Saturn, held on the 17th of December of the Julian calendar and later expanded with festivities through to the 23rd of December. According to Porphyry, the Saturnalia occurred near the winter solstice because the sun enters Capricorn, the astrological house of Saturn, at that time.

The Saturnalia is the best-known of several festivals in the Greco-Roman world, celebrated with a sacrifice at the Temple of Saturn, in the Roman Forum, and a public banquet, followed by private gift-giving, festivities, and a carnival atmosphere that overturned Roman social norms. Slaves were treated to a banquet of the kind usually enjoyed by their masters. Saturnalian license also permitted slaves to enjoy a pretense of disrespect for their masters, and exempted them from punishment.

Imperial sources refer to a Saturnalicius princeps who ruled as master of ceremonies for the proceedings. He was appointed by lot, and has been compared to the medieval Lord of Misrule at the Feast of Fools. His inane commands, such as “Sing naked” or “Throw him into cold water,” had to be obeyed by the other guests at the convivium: he creates and (mis)rules a chaotic and absurd world.

In The Golden Bough, Jame Frazer interpreted an incident from the Acts of Saint Dasius, an early martyrological text, as indicative of human sacrifice in connection with the Saturnalia. Dasius was a Christian soldier who refused to play the part of the King of the Saturnalia when it was allotted to him, and for his refusal was killed. Frazer then surmises that the King of the Saturnalia was originally a scapegoat victim who was killed as a human sacrifice to Saturn at the end of his festival.

The popularity of Saturnalia continued into the third and fourth centuries AD, and as the Roman Empire came under Christian rule, some of its customs have influenced the seasonal celebrations surrounding Christmas and the New Year. In one of the interpretations in Macrobius’ work, Saturnalia is a festival of light leading to the winter solstice, with the abundant presence of candles symbolizing the quest for knowledge and truth. The renewal of light and the coming of the new year was celebrated in the later Roman Empire at the Dies Natalis of Sol Invictus, the “Birthday of the Unconquerable Sun,” on December 25.

The cult of Sol Invictus, of Syrian in origin, was harmonized with the cult of Mithras, with which it was so similar that the two are often confused. Ultimately, reserved for the highest ranking members, and representing the ultimate mystery, the ancient Mysteries of Mithras equated Mithras with the Leontocephalus, a lion-headed and winged god who was also equated with Hades, the Greek Satan. The Leontocephalus has also been identified with Saturn. According to Ptolemy, the people of Persia and Mesopotamia “worship the star of Aphrodite [Venus], naming it Isis, and the star of Kronos [Saturn] as Mithras Helios (Sun).”[3] Saturn, known as the nocturnal Sun, and “Pluto”, Porphyry explained, “is the Sun going beneath the earth and voyaging round the invisible world…”[4]

Imposed by Roman emperors on their subjects a century before Constantine, and instead of being eliminated in the time of his reign, it seems to have to have survived by being absorbed into Christianity. In common with Jesus, Mithras was born in a cave surrounded by animals and shepherds at the Winter Solstice in December, dates that had specific astronomical significance.  In the Julian calendar, the twenty-fifth of December was reckoned the winter solstice, and was regarded as the Nativity of the Sun, because from this date the length of the day began to increase, and therefore, was regarded as the day of the rebirth of the Sun-god and the rejuvenation of life.

The Gospels, however, say nothing as to the day of Christ’s birth, and accordingly the early Church did not celebrate it. In time, though, the Christians of Egypt had come to regard the sixth of January as the birth of the Saviour, and that date gradually spread until, by the fourth century AD, it was universally established in the East.  Finally, however, at the end of the third or the beginning of the fourth century AD, the Western Church, which had never recognized the sixth of January as the day of the Nativity, adopted the twenty-fifth of December as the true date.

Christian authors, like Justin Martyr and Tertullian, noted the similarities between Christianity and Mithraism, but claimed that the mysteries were demonically inspired imitations of the true Christianity.  To Justin Martyr: “Jesus took bread, and… said, “this do ye in remembrance of me, this is my body”; and, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “this is my blood”; and gave it to them… Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithra, commanding the same thing to be done.” [5]

To Tertullian, “washing is the channel through which they are initiated into the sacred rites of some notorious Isis or Mithras… at the Eleusinia they are baptized to achieve regeneration, and the remission of their sins.  Which fact being acknowledged, we recognize here also the zeal of the devil rivaling the things of God, while we find him, too, practicing baptism.” [6]] Tertullian states that Mithras “in the kingdom of Satan, sets his marks on the forehead of his soldiers; celebrates also the oblation of bread, and introduces an image of resurrection… What also must one say to Satan’s limiting his chief priest to a single marriage: He too, has his virgins; he, too, his proficients in continence… Satan has shown such emulation in… administration of Christ’s sacraments” that he “succeeded in adapting to his profane and rival creed the very documents of divine things and of the Christian saints.” [7]

Effectively, although his mission began as that of an orthodox Jewish reformer, Jesus became the dying god of the mysteries, whose death and resurrection was celebrated every spring, known as Easter.  Most of the churches had decided to observe Easter replacing the Jewish Passover. The Jewish Passover festival was ostensibly celebrated to commemorate the night God slew the firstborn sons of the Egyptians, expect those houses marked with the blood of a sacrificed lamb, which He passed over. In actuality, Passover was an assimilation of the spring rites that celebrated the death and resurrection of Tammuz. The Book of Ezekiel speaks of as an abomination among the Jews, with Jewish women sitting by the gate of the Temple weeping for the foreign god.[8]

 



[1] Diodorus Siculus, Book II: 30.

[2] Book XX, Chap. I.

[3] Tetrabiblos 2.2.64, quoted from Beck, Planetary Gods, p. 86.

[4] Beck, Planetary Gods, p. 89.

[5] First Apology, LXVI.

[6] On Baptism, V.

[7] Prescription Against Heresies, XL.

[8] Ezekial 8:14; Jeremiah 32:29: 44:15: Isaiah 17:10

 

Comments

Anagrams for: santa

Guess what?

6 found. Displaying all:
Satan
A Ants
A Tans
An Sat
Tan As
Ant As

Thank Mister Livingstone!

I thought the word "Santa" came from Santa Claus, which in turn is an Anglicised pronunciation of "Saint Nicholas".

Not discrediting what's written here, just pointing out where the word "Santa" comes from. The anagram is a coincidence.

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSAAATTTTAAAANNNNNNNNN

Isn't Jesus just another sun god? Who is this Jesus-person anyway?

PROPHET JESUS OF GALILEE & THE SACRIFICIAL SYSTEM

Undergirding the theory that it was the cheating money-changers whom Jesus targeted as the culprits in the system of animal sacrifice, is the claim that the whole process had become “too commercial.”

This is akin to claiming that the institution of slavery had to be dismantled because it had become too commercial. Although both Temple sacrifices and human slavery had a firm economic foundation, it was the inherent immorality of those systems that brought together the historical forces which finally led to their collapse.

Several hundred years after prophets like Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, and Hosea had denounced the sacrificial slaughter of animals, Jesus carried out what is euphemistically called the Cleansing of the Temple. It was just before Passover and he disrupted the buying and selling of animals that were being purchased for slaughter. And because Christian scholars and religious leaders continue to ignore biblical denunciations of that bloody worship, they also try to obscure the reason for Jesus’ assault on the system.

They have done this by focusing on the money-changers, although they were only minor players in the drama that took place. It was the cult of sacrifice that Jesus tried to dismantle, not the system of monetary exchange. In all three gospel accounts of the event, those who provided the animals for sacrifice are mentioned first: they were the primary focus of Jesus’ outrage.

The Gospel of John gives the most detailed account of the event.

“When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
In the Temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords and drove all from the Temple, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said: ‘Get out of here.’ (John 2:13-16)

Matthew’s gospel does not detail the kind of animals that were being sold for slaughter, but it gives the same order of events.

“Jesus entered the Temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves.

‘It is written,’ he said to them, ‘My House will be called a House of Prayer but you are making it a Den of Robbers.’” (Matthew 21:12-13)

The same account is given in the gospel of Mark who, like Matthew, also reports that Jesus accused those at the Temple of making God’s house into a “den of robbers.” And there is universal acknowledgement that in both gospels, when Jesus said this, he was quoting from the prophet Jeremiah (7:11). That prophet had hurled the same accusation at the people of his own time, almost six hundred years earlier. He said it while standing at the Temple entrance, after he had already warned the people “do not shed innocent blood in this place.” And when Jeremiah said God’s House had been turned into a Den of Robbers it could not have had anything to do with money-changers–they did not exist in his time.

In the time of Jeremiah, as in the time of Jesus, there was a great distinction made between “robbers” and “thieves.” In contemporary times that distinction can best be understood by comparing the crime of petty theft with crimes of armed robbery by those who violently attack/kill their victims. But in ancient Israel there was an even greater distinction. A thief could be anyone who succumbed to a momentary impulse to steal something, but a robber was someone for whom violent crime and killing was a lifestyle.

Both Jesus and Jeremiah were indignant about the violence of sacrificial worship, not the possibility of petty theft by money-changers. When they said God’s House had become a den of “robbers” the Hebrew word that was used (here, transliterated) was “per-eets’” defined as “violent, i.e., a tyrant–destroyer, ravenous, robber.” It was the violence of the system, the killing of innocent victims in the name of God, that they were condemning. The money changers operating in the time of Jesus were driven out of the Temple because they were taking part in the process of sacrificial religion, NOT because they may have been cheating the pilgrims.

The gospel of Mark correlates Jesus’ attempt to dismantle the sacrificial system with the plot to kill him. Like Matthew’s gospel, Mark’s account of the Temple Cleansing starts by saying that Jesus “began driving out those who were buying and selling there.” It goes on to relate how he explained to the people why he was doing this, by quoting Jeremiah’s opposition to animal sacrifice:

“My House will be called a House of Prayer for ALL Nations. But you have made it a ‘Den of Robbers.’”

And in the verse of scripture immediately following that statement, Mark reports that “The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard about this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him because the whole crowd was amazed at his teachings.”(Mark 11:18)

It is ridiculous to claim that the religious leaders of Jesus’ time would have plotted his death because he undermined the function of the money-changers. Nor would the crowd have been “amazed at his teachings” if Jesus was simply telling them to make sure they were not short-changed when they purchased Temple coins. What the people were amazed at was his condemnation of animal sacrifice; it had been hundreds of years since that kind of condemnation had been heard in Jerusalem. And it would not be allowed. A few days after he tried to overthrow the Cult of Animal Sacrifice, Jesus was crucified. The religious leaders of his time were determined to preserve the belief that it had been ordained by God, who demanded its continuance.

That determination is echoed in the teachings of contemporary Christian leaders. In spite of Jesus, and in spite of the many biblical denunciations of animal sacrifice (*see endnote) they continue to maintain the ancient fiction that it was God who demanded His creatures be killed and butchered as an act of worship.

It is understandable that in the time of Jesus the religious leaders were committed to upholding the system of Temple sacrifice at all costs: it was the center around which their lives revolved and their livelihood depended. And in biblical times, most people were illiterate and dependent on what their religious leaders taught them concerning the scriptures. But it is not easy to understand why contemporary Christians uphold the validity of the cult of animal sacrifice. In an age of widespread literacy, there is a choice to be made. The bible clearly presents an ongoing conflict between those forces that demanded sacrificial victims in the name of God, and those forces that opposed it as a man-made perversion.

And because there is a choice to be made, it is deeply disturbing to see Christian leaders joining hands across the centuries with their ancient counterparts, in order to validate a system of worship in which the house of God became a giant slaughterhouse, awash in the blood of its victims.

*Partial list of scriptures opposing animal sacrifice.

Psalm 40:6

Isaiah 1:11-17;

Jeremiah 7:3-7, 11, 21-25

Hosea 8:11-13,

Amos 5:21-25

Micah 6:6-8

Add new comment