Vedic Empire’s “Back to Doghead” Christmas special

Video description: The First Vedic Empire TV show aired in Honolulu, Hawaii in Oct 1996. Now over 25 years later, Neil Kalia Robinson and Vrndavan Brannon Parker Reunite! Joined by historical researcher and religious scholar Elijah Dobkins, the Vedic Empire TV Series is Back!

Have you ever wondered why Santa looks and behaves the way he does? Why do cultures all over the World have seemingly different Santa origin stories? Did you know that the prototype for Santa was based on the ‘Dog-Headed’ St. Christopher among several other ancient personalities?

In this episode, Neil Kalia Robinson presents a startling premise; Santa Claus, his elves, gifts bags/seasonal gift giving, naughty or nice lists and many other aspects of the Western Christmas tradition are in fact rooted in India’s ancient Vedic Ramayana tradition.

From Bhakti Ananda Goswami: Thanks to Kalia, Vrn and Elijah for this video, which is a discussion led by Kalia, concerning the many in-common thematic elements found in the Eastern Ramayana and the Mediterranean Judeo-Catholic related traditions associated with Saint Christopher, the CHRIST-Bearer, and confounded later with Saint Nicolas as ‘Santa Claus’.

My main comment would be to give a more non-Indo-centric context to the entire discussion. At one point, both Kalia and Vrn note that elements of the Ramayana can be found everywhere. I assert that these common elements are the common heritage of all Humanity. I do not agree that they all diffused from India or Hinduism. For example, I have studied the story of the Descent into the underworld, that is at the core of the Dionysian, Orphic, Eleusinian and other ‘Mysteries’.

In the Ramayana, SITA is the kidnapped Daughter of Mother Earth.

In the Eleusinian Mysteries, PERSEPHONE is the kidnapped Daughter of Mother Earth, DEMETER.

Orphism is associated with all of the HELIOS-APOLLO (KOUROS) and original Dionysian Mysteries of the ancient Afro-Heleno-Semitic Heliopolitan Mystery Schools / Diksha Guru-Kulas. The Greek Mentors of these schools / kulas were Mantrins. The Ascetic Saints of these Diksha Schools were Jewish Tzaddiks. In the East, these Ascetic Tzaddiks were called Vaishnava, Shaivite and Buddhist Sadhakas, Sadhus and female Sadhvis.

This Lila of the Lord’s Descent to save His Beloved. Who has been taken captive by death or Hades or Ravana etc. is part of the Dionysian tradition. DIONYSOS in the East is Lord BALADEVA. All Incarnations of the Lord, are through, with, in and by, that Lord, which the ancients called BL or YAHU, VASU-DEVA. The Greeks called him BELOS or BEL DIOS. He was YAHU as the Supreme Lord of Jericho and Palmyra. He was the Original God, DIONYSOS the ‘Older’ Form of HELIOS KOUROS APOLLO of Rhodes.…/dog-gods-anubis-and-xototl…

Dharmaraja as Afro-Heleno-Semitic
Anpu and Meso-American Xolotl

The original DHARMA RAJA as ‘Born from the Body of the ADI PURUSHA’, is an Expansion of BALADEVA as the Cosmic ADI PURUSHA. He is not a mere finite ‘Jiva’ soul. It is He who appears as the Dog that guides (or follows) the Pandavas to their deaths. He is the Dog-Headed Egyptian ANPU, the Greek ANUBIS that is both the Guide and the Judge of the Dead in Egyptian, Greco-Roman and Near Eastern mysteries.

In these mysteries, he may be confounded with Cerberus, and the river may be confused with the Styx or the mystical ‘River Jordan’ (Descender) between Heaven and Earth.

In the final journey of the Pandavas, the Heroic Friends of God/Krishna, as they renounce the world and climb up into the Holy Himalaya Mountains to meet their Death, they are joined by a stray dog, which quickly becomes dependent upon them. After the other younger Pandava Brothers have met Death, the righteous older Brother King Yudhisthira, who is the Son of Dharma (HARI as Righteousness in Person, King Yama-Raja) is approached from the sky by Indra in a Heavenly Chariot and invited to go to Heaven immediately without experiencing Death!

As King Yudhisthira is about to mount the Chariot with his dog at his feet, Indra says that Yudhisthira’s dog cannot come (dogs being considered ritually Tamasic animals, whose very presense spoils a Sattvic Vedic sacrifice). At this, Yudhisthira steps back from the Heavenly Chariot and says that he must stay behind to take care of the dog, because it has become dependent upon him. As the very essense of the Dharma of the Vedic-Vaishnava King is to take care of every last being that is dependent upon him, once again in this final test, King Yudhisthira proves his devotion to Dharma, even at the cost of his own ascent to heaven! At this stunning expression of King Yudhisthira’s devotion to the welfare of a stray dog, the Dog then reveals His Original Form, and HE is Lord Dharma Raja, Yudhisthira’s Own Divine Father Himself!

Having thus tested the depths of Yudhisthira’s real devotion to Dharma/Righteousness, Lord Dharmaraja blesses him and Yudhisthira mounts King Indra’s Chariot for the trip to Swarga/Heaven.

Thus we see that the Lord HARI as Righteousness in Person, King Dharmaraja (also called YAMA-RAJA) in the form of a DOG, has, in this story acted as the companion or ‘guide’ of the Righteous Pandavas on their difficult ascent (anabasis) towards Death. Like the Egyptian HERU-WASU-ANPU or ANUBIS, He is also, as Yama-Raja, the Judge of the Dead.

It is obvious that the inter-racial and inter-linguistic Afro-Heleno-Semitic Mediterranean Heliopolitan Tradition of the Dog-Headed-Human-God or Dog-God Anpu or Anubis is related to the Vedic-Vaishnava and Pure Land Buddhist Tradition of Dharma or Yama Raja.

Saints in the GSS Catholic Apostolic Traditions
versus the Saints in Gnosticism.

In the many forms of anti-Apostolic (anti-Catholic) Gnosticism, the Saints, symbols and teachings of the Apostolic Catholic Churches are endlessly redacted and mis-re-presented as the heritage and properties of Gnosticism, when factually, these elements of Gnosticism originated in the GSS (Guru, Shastra and Sadhu) schools of Judaism, Catholicism and the Ascetic Heliopolitan Asyla Federations.

Basically, the Gnostics just appropriated whatever they wanted from the GSS traditions, and created various anti-GSS hodge-podge ‘Gnostic’ schools of their own, out of what they piece-meal stole, without any Apostolic Diksha initiated authority, from the actual GSS Traditions.

Consequently, today one can go back into the Gnostic ‘Gospels’ and other Gnostic literatures and find all kinds of pre and post advent (of JESUS) teachings, both Christian and non Christian, all merged together, into various anti-GSS formulations. One of the most common errors of all of the Gnostics was to mis-identify the Jewish God of the ‘Old Testament’ Exodus story with Ahriman, the personified evil of Zoroastrianism. The Gnostics confused Ahriman with ZERVAN, Lion-Headed Time, KALAH KRISHNA, of the Bhagavad Gita! To the Jews, KALAH HARI was their YAHU-TZABAOTH!

Thus from confusing God with his own arch-enemy, this Gnostic corruption of everything Holy (God and GSS revealed), is why the actual Apostolic (Catholic Mass Rite) Churches had to create a ‘Canon’ of Scripture / Shastra, Saints / Sadhus and Diksha / Disciple Gurus, to counter the devastating corruptions of Gnosticism.

One may study Gnosticism, but should never confuse the Gnostics with the Apostles of JESUS and the GSS Mass Rite / Moksha Rtya (Catholic) lineages that the disciples of JESUS founded and died to perpetuate.

[St. Christopher] Epic

Epics about the life and death of Saint Christopher first appeared in Greece in the 6th century and had spread to France by the 9th century. The 11th-century bishop and poet Walter of Speyer gave one version, but the most popular variations originated from the 13th-century Golden Legend.[9]

According to the legendary account of his life Christopher was initially called Reprobus.[10] He was a Canaanite, 5 cubits (7.5 feet (2.3 m)) tall[11] and with a fearsome face. While serving the king of Canaan, he took it into his head to go and serve “the greatest king there was”. He went to the king who was reputed to be the greatest, but one day he saw the king cross himself at the mention of the devil. On thus learning that the king feared the devil, he departed to look for the devil. He came across a band of marauders, one of whom declared himself to be the devil, so Christopher decided to serve him. But when he saw his new master avoid a wayside cross and found out that the devil feared Christ, he left him and enquired from people where to find Christ. He met a hermit who instructed him in the Christian faith. Christopher asked him how he could serve Christ. When the hermit suggested fasting and prayer, Christopher replied that he was unable to perform that service. The hermit then suggested that because of his size and strength Christopher could serve Christ by assisting people to cross a dangerous river, where they were perishing in the attempt. The hermit promised that this service would be pleasing to Christ.

After Christopher had performed this service for some time, a little child asked him to take him across the river. During the crossing, the river became swollen and the child seemed as heavy as lead, so much that Christopher could scarcely carry him and found himself in great difficulty. When he finally reached the other side, he said to the child: “You have put me in the greatest danger. I do not think the whole world could have been as heavy on my shoulders as you were.” The child replied: “You had on your shoulders not only the whole world but Him who made it. I am Christ your king, whom you are serving by this work.” The child then vanished.[12]

Christopher later visited Lycia and there comforted the Christians who were being martyred. Brought before the local king, he refused to sacrifice to the pagan gods. The king tried to win him by riches and by sending two beautiful women to tempt him. Christopher converted the women to Christianity, as he had already converted thousands in the city. The king ordered him to be killed. Various attempts failed, but finally Christopher was beheaded.[12]

The Greek name Christophoros means “Christ bearer”.

Veneration and patronage

Eastern Orthodox liturgy

The Eastern Orthodox Church venerates Christopher of Lycea (or Lycia) with a Feast Day on May 9. The liturgical reading and hymns refer to his imprisonment by Decius who tempts Christopher with harlots before ordering his beheading.[13] The Kontakion in the Fourth Tone (hymn) reads:

Thou who wast terrifying both in strength and in countenance, for thy Creator’s sake thou didst surrender thyself willingly to them that sought thee; for thou didst persuade both them and the women that sought to arouse in thee the fire of lust, and they followed thee in the path of martyrdom. And in torments thou didst prove to be courageous. Wherefore, we have gained thee as our great protector, O great Christopher.[13]

General patronage

St. Christopher is a widely popular saint, especially revered by athletes, marinersferrymen, and travelers.[9] He is revered as one of the Fourteen Holy Helpers. He holds patronage of things related to travel and travelers—against lightning and pestilence—and patronage for archersbachelors; boatmen; soldiers; bookbindersepilepsy; floods; fruit dealers; fullersgardeners; a holy death; mariners; market carriers; motorists and drivers; sailors; storms; surfers;[20] toothache; mountaineering; and transportation workers.

The actual legend of Saint Christopher has many versions, including the version in which Saint Christopher carries JESUS as a baby into Egypt to hide him from the persecution of King Herod.

The main elements of the legend are related-to the Vaishnava story of BALADEVA riding on the giant demon, who feels crushed under his weight.

As the divine child, pearl-white Lord BALADEVA had many encounters with asura ‘demons’, and in one of them, an asura thought that he tricked Lord BALADEVA into carrying Him, but Lord BALADEVA became so heavy that the asura could not bear his weight any more.

This is the critically important element of the stories of both the ‘Giant’ Saint Christopher, who carried JESUS, and the ‘Giant’ asura that tricked Lord BALADEVA, as a child, into getting on his shoulders. In both traditions, the Child-Lord becomes too-heavy for the Giant to carry him, and is thus revealed to be the Divine PURUSHA, whose weight is that of the entire World!

See this protected ‘image’ in link: “Blindman’s Buff: the Demon Pralambha Carries Balarama on His Shoulder,” Folio from the dispersed “Isarda” Bhagavata Purana (The Ancient Story of God) 1560–1565

The Dog-Headed Form of Saint Christopher, is related to the form of Egyptian ANPU / Greek ANUBIS, who is DHARMA RAJA in His ancient primitive dog breed Form (see my album), who is associated with the dead and the River Styx, between the World of the living and that of the dead / shades. He is the Guide and Protector of the dead and also the Judge of the dead.

Note his importance as the patron of travelers and a Holy Death! He is especially the patron protector of people on a pilgrimage and on the last journey of life / a Holy Death! This is specifically the role of the Dog Form of DHARMARAJA in the end of the Mahabharata! He accompanies the hero’s to their final end and then transforms His lowly Dog-Form into the Judge of the Dead, DHARMA RAJA!

In the Russian Orthodox Tradition, St. Christopher may be Dog-Headed in His Icons!

I am of the opinion that the origin of the idea of the ‘race’ of giant dog-headed men, is because they were Canaanites, whose name was confounded with canines / dogs. See this WIKI article:

In the Eastern Orthodox Church, certain icons covertly identify Saint Christopher with the head of a dog. Such images may carry echoes of the Egyptian dog-headed god, Anubis. Christopher pictured with a dog’s head is not generally supported by the Orthodox Church, as the icon was proscribed in the 18th century by Moscow.[23]

I would also like to mention the possibility that there once was an inbred tribe of Humans that were actually hairy like today’s people with Hypertrichosis.

The excessive growth of hair on the body is called hypertrichosis. Hypertrichosis is a condition that is characterized by excessive hair growth over the body. The two distinct types of hypertrichosis are generalized hypertrichosis, which occurs over the entire body, and localized hypertrichosis, which is restricted to a certain area. Hypertrichosis can be either congenital (present at birth) or acquired later in life. The condition is always found in males because the trait is Y-linked and son always gets it from father. Hypertrichosis disease is also known as “Werewolf Syndrome”. The presence of coarse pigmented hair on the face and chest in a female is called hirsutism. It is due to hyperandrogenism.

The historically real Saint Nicholas of Myra is often confounded with Saint Christopher, who is depicted in the Eastern Orthodox tradition of Iconography with the Dog’s Head.

Saint Nicholas of Myra[a] (traditionally 15 March 270 – 6 December 343),[3][4][b] also known as Nicholas of Bari, was an early Christian bishop of Greek descent from the maritime city of Myra in Asia Minor (Greek: Μύρα; modern-day Demre, Turkey) during the time of the Roman Empire.[7][8]

Some people might confuse Saint Nicolas with Saint Christopher, which is why I added the WIKI page correction above. These are two completely different Saints. The historical Saint Nicholas must be differentiated from the previous legendary traditions of Saint Christopher and Santa Claus!

The real Saint Nicholas of Myra, was much later confounded with the mythological elements of the Northern ‘wild man’ or Forest Giant, King of the Elves etc., whose various stories and symbols became homogenized and folded-into the modern Era Santa Claus, with Laplander reindeer etc. all mixed-in. 

So we could say that to cook-up the modern present day Santa Claus, we would have to take a portion of the ancient Ramayana related Mediterranean etc. Mysteries, add these to some obviously Northern European Wild Man / Giant elements, and then mix them with both the history and legends the real Saint Nicholas, Bishop of Myra, the one who slapped Arian for denying the Divinity of of JESUS CHRIST!

Saint / Santa / Shanta Rasa Saint
Saints are people too…

Deviation or Disciplic Succession?
The First Council of Nicaea

Original art by Will Skelly
Nicholas of Myra was a very great Saint! Extremely merciful, but legend says that when a blasphemer denied the divinity of JESUS in a great counsel, Nicholas calmly got up, walked over to the man and.. slapped him!

The Council decided against the Arians overwhelmingly (of the estimated 250–318 attendees, all but two agreed to sign the creed, and these two, along with Arius, were banished to Illyria).

Of 250-318 of the ‘Disciplic’ successors of the Apostles, of the entire (not just Latin Rite) Church, it was only Arius and 2 of the Council that disagreed with the voted-on Creed, (Greek Creed / Credo is Shraddha in Sanskrit), containing the Doctrine of JESUS CHRIST as the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity. This Nicaean Creed ‘Only Begotten’ (Mono-Genous, Sole-Generated) Doctrine of JESUS as God-from-God, (SAN-KARSHANA BALADEVA) the Second Person of the Godhead was central to distinguishing JESUS as unique from all other created beings, and it was the true Gospel of the Apostles’ JESUS. He was historically and theologically the Second Person of the Most Holy Godhead / Trinity of HERU-AUSU-ATUM, ELI-YAHU-ADON, HARI-VASU-ATMAN. JESUS YAHU-SHUA was YAHU as the World / Cosmos-Saver. Arius and the 2 that denied the Divinity of JESUS, were thus condemned as heretics, for rejecting the Apostolic teaching that JESUS was eternally God-from-God, and instead teaching that he was merely a created being!

Those Arianists, Gnostics and others who taught ‘another Jesus’ than the JESUS of the Apostles were the forerunners of all of today’s concocted forms of ‘Jesus the Christ’ New Age (and ISKCON non-BALADEVA) non-Trinity ‘Jesuses’.

At the First Council of Nicaea, Apostolic (‘Disciplic’) Acharyas from all of the Rites / Rtyas came together, to agree on their inheritance of faith, and codify their common Creed / Credo. We chant this Creed / Credo at Mass, just exactly like how Vaishnavas chant their own Sampradaya lineage Shraddha Creed! The recitation of one’s own Sampradaya Creed begins with the word Credo / Shraddha.

See Credo and Sanskrit Śrad-dhā

Sanskrit śrad-dhā- “faith, confidence, devotion”), from PIE root *kerd- “heart.” The nativized form is creed. General sense of “formula or statement of belief” is from 1580s.


Proto-Indo-European root meaning “heart.”

It forms all or part of: accordcardiaccardio-concordcorecordialcouragecredencecrediblecreditcredocredulouscreeddiscordgrantheartincroyablemegalocardiamiscreantmyocardiumpericarditispericardiumquarry (n.1) “what is hunted;” recordrecreanttachycardia.

It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Greek kardia, Latin cor, Armenian sirt, Old Irish cride, Welsh craidd, Hittite kir, Lithuanian širdis, Russian serdce, Old English heorte, German Herz, Gothic hairto, “heart;” Breton kreiz “middle;” Old Church Slavonic sreda “middle.”

creed (n.)

Old English creda “article or statement of Christian belief, confession of faith,” from Latin credo “I believe” (see credo). Broadening 17c. to mean “a statement of belief on any subject.” Meaning “what is believed, accepted doctrine” is from 1610s. Related: Creedal.

A Creed, or Rule of Faith, or Symbol, is a confession of faith for public use, or a form of words setting forth with authority certain articles of belief, which are regarded by the framers as necessary for salvation, or at least for the well-being of the Christian Church. [Philip Schaff, “The Creeds of Christendom,” 1877]

The people who attack the Council are motivated by some desire to promote some non-Apostolic ‘Jesus’… a Gnostic or other non Trinitarian ‘Second Person’ Jesus, and to deny the distinct-but-one Persons of the Most Holy Trinity. These Council-deniers are anti-Catholic, may be Russian Orthodox, Protestant, Muslim, Arianists or any other JESUS-and-His-Church historical adversaries. Thus one may read or see and hear countless attacks on the Council of Nicaea and the Nicaean Creed. I have studied the Creed / Shraddha of Nicaea, the Council and Constantine in great depth and have found that just like the Great Parampara or Sampradaya Councils of the other Guru-Shastra-Sadhu Bhakti Traditions, such councils were extremely important in the histories of every lineage of Vaishnavism, Pure Land Buddhism, Judaism, or Great Bhakti Diksha Lineages.

Establishing and carefully defining and defending the Creed of the Diksha lineage and communally reciting the Creed at every meeting or important event, was a standard practice in every Bhakti lineage.

No effort should ever be made to merge any revelatory Bhakti Yoga lineage with another. This is the wrong approach, just like saying NITYANANDA PRABHU is JESUS CHRIST! I have never said such a thing. The Persons, Avataras and Lila Forms etc. of the Lord are always distinct, because their emotional Rasas and personalities / relationships with their devotees are unique! By inappropriately merging these personalities all together, we would be concocting Rasa Bhasa personal dynamics. However, we can say that there is no historically or theologically separate identity of NITYANANDA PRABHU from Lord SAM-KARSHANA BALADEVA. Thus we even call Him NITYANANDA-BALARAMA! And likewise, there is no historical or theological identity of JESUS CHRIST, separate from the history and Divine Revelation of BAL-YAHU! So both JESUS and NITAI are Forms of Lord BALADEVA, the Second Person of SRI KRISHNA, HARI.

Icon depicting the Emperor Constantine and the bishops of the First Council of Nicaea (325) holding the Niceno–Constantinopolitan Creed of 381

This point is extremely important to understand. It is the only way to simultaneously understand the inconceivable oneness and difference of JESUS YAHU-BAL and NITYANANDA-BALADEVA.

The Nicaean Creed is perfect, and perfectly compatible with the Apostle’s Christology. And the council was called and conducted in accordance with all of the other Great Bhakti Tradition Councils of the Ancient World! Attackers of the Council and the Creed / Shraddha of the Council are simply the misguided followers of ‘another Jesus’, who was not the Second Person of the Godhead, Most Holy Trinity of HARI-VASU (BALADEVA)-ATMAN (PARAMATMA).

Read the Nicaean Creed with my Vaishnava theology KRISHNA-BALADEVA-PARAMATMA in mind:

One of the projects undertaken by the Council was the creation of a creed, a declaration and summary of the Christian faith. Several creeds were already in existence; many creeds were acceptable to the members of the Council, including Arius. From earliest times, various creeds served as a means of identification for Christians, as a means of inclusion and recognition, especially at baptism. In Rome, for example, the Apostles’ Creed was popular, especially for use in Lent and the Easter season. In the Council of Nicaea, one specific creed was used to define the Church’s faith clearly, to include those who professed it, and to exclude those who did not.

The original Nicene Creed read as follows:

We believe in one God, the Father almighty,
maker of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God,
begotten from the Father, only-begotten,
that is, from the substance of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God, begotten not made,
of one substance with the Father,
through Whom all things came into being,
things in heaven and things on earth,
Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down,
and became incarnate and became man, and suffered,
and rose again on the third day, and ascended to the heavens,
and will come to judge the living and dead,
And in the Holy Spirit.
But as for those who say, There was when He was not,
and, Before being born He was not,
and that He came into existence out of nothing,
or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance,
or created, or is subject to alteration or change
– these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.[66]

Some distinctive elements in the Nicene Creed, perhaps from the hand of Hosius of Cordova, were added, some specifically to counter the Arian point of view.[13][67]

  1. Jesus Christ is described as “Light from Light, true God from true God”, proclaiming his divinity.
  2. Jesus Christ is said to be “begotten, not made”, asserting that he was not a mere creature, brought into being out of nothing, but the true Son of God, brought into being “from the substance of the Father”.
  3. He is said to be “of one substance with the Father”, proclaiming that although Jesus Christ is “true God” and God the Father is also “true God”, they are “of one substance”. The Greek term homoousiosconsubstantial (i.e. of the same substance) is ascribed by Eusebius of Caesarea to Constantine who, on this particular point, may have chosen to exercise his authority. The significance of this clause, however, is ambiguous as to the extent in which Jesus Christ and God the Father are “of one substance”, and the issues it raised would be seriously controverted in the future.

At the end of the creed came a list of anathemas, designed to repudiate explicitly the Arians’ stated claims.

  1. The view that “there was once when he was not” was rejected to maintain the coeternity of the Son with the Father.
  2. The view that he was “mutable or subject to change” was rejected to maintain that the Son just like the Father was beyond any form of weakness or corruptibility, and most importantly that he could not fall away from absolute moral perfection.

According to the actual lineage of Saint Nicholas:

A later legend, first attested in the fourteenth century, over 1,000 years after Nicholas’s death, holds that, during the Council of Nicaea, Nicholas lost his temper and slapped “a certain Arian” across the face. On account of this, Constantine revoked Nicholas’s miter and pallium.[47] Steven D. Greydanus[who?] concludes that, because of the story’s late attestation, it “has no historical value.”[47] Jona Lendering, however, defends the veracity and historicity of the incident, arguing that, as it was embarrassing and reflects poorly on Nicholas’s reputation, it is inexplicable why later hagiographers would have invented it.[22] Later versions of the legend embellish it, making the heretic Arius himself[47][53] and having Nicholas punch him rather than merely slapping him with his open hand. In these versions of the story, Nicholas is also imprisoned,[47][53] but Christ and the Virgin Mary appear to him in his cell.[47][53] He tells them he is imprisoned “for loving you” and they free him from his chains and restore his vestments.[47][53] The scene of Nicholas slapping Arius is celebrated in Eastern Orthodox icons [47] and episodes of Saint Nicholas at Nicaea are shown in a series of paintings from the 1660s in the Basilica di San Nicola in Bari.[52]

In the lineage, the ‘legend’ is that Saint Nicholas got up and slapped Arian for out-right denying the Divinity of JESUS.

Merry Christmas! Pax and Prema!
~Bhakti Ananda Goswami

One response »

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s