Thursday, May 02, 2013

Anti-Catholic on Christmas

Roger said:
Do you agree with the conclusion of the writer in the Catholic paper that I brought earlier?

I reply:
Yes, I agree with the history and also agree with the author on the limits historical documents can show us about the choice of Dec 25 as the day of celebration of Christ's birth.

You see, I have no problem when one shares his opinion based on facts when they are presented as such. You Roger present your OPINIONS, admittedly base on facts, but as facts themselves. That, sir, is a deceiving way of convincing others. Is deception the way of the Lord?
Here's what I mean. In the article you posted you highlighted what you thought proved your point but you don't seem to realize that the author, who you believe to be an expert in the art of textual criticism and in the analysis of historical documents, couched his OPINION in such a way as to make clear that it was indeed just his opinion. You do the opposite, you couch your OPINION as though it was a fact. Here’s an Example:

The well-known solar feast, however, of Natalis Invicti, celebrated on 25 December, has a strong claim on the responsibility for our December date.
{Strong claim but not decisive or concrete}

It is known history that the pagans used to worship their sun god, Baal and his son, Tammuz on December 25th. It is also known history that - in order to entice the pagans to join the Church - the Church agreed to accept December 25th as a special day of worship, too. Now, where is logic applied so far here? (emphasis mine)
{See the differance? You pronounce it as fact when even the expert doesn't claim it.)

Here's another example:

The present writer is inclined to think that, be the origin of the feast in East or West, and though the abundance of analogous midwinter festivals may indefinitely have helped the choice of the December date...(emphasis mine)
{Here again we see a possibility that his statement is his opinion and not fact}

but you say:

Finally you agree that December 25th was adopted by the Church as a way to attract pagans to join and stay with the new Church. Of course, this is considered to be a known historical fact.
See the differance? Whether you realize it or not you are using deceiving tactics to make your point. God does not use deceiving tactics to give us His message but Satan does. Whose tactics do you wish to use? God's or Satan's?

Food for thought.

And by the way…  We call that special celebration of God being born in the flesh as Christmas, ie Christ's Mass. The name should at least show you that we are not commemorating Tammuz or Baal but Christ.  Not idol worship but true worship of God.

God Bless

1 comment:

  1. It should also be noted that an early belief was that people died on the anniversary of their conception. Jesus died on the week of Passover, putting the date right around March 25th in 33AD. Nine months after March 25th is December 25th.

    Also, if they were really trying to impress the pagans, why pick a date which is 3 days AFTER the vernal equinox? Put it ON the equinox if you're trying to appease the pagans!


Keep in mind while posting:
1) Please respond ON TOPIC to the article at hand.
2) Posts more than 4 weeks old are set to automatically save new comments for moderation - so your comment may not show up immediately if you're responding to an older post.
3) The "Spam Filter" is on - and randomly messages get caught in that filter. I have no control over which messages get caught in the spam filter and those that do must wait for me to mark them as "not spam." A message caught by the spam filter may show up for a moment, making you think it posted, and then disappear. Do not assume I have deleted your comment, it's probably just the spam filter and it will show up.