Basically, your response boils down to telling me I’m either an idiot, or evil. You’re the one making the arguments. It’s up to you to make them clear.
Or allow me to put it another way:
Reasoned discourse is the great equalizer of status in debate. Through it, we allow the one who makes the better argument hold authority over those with lesser arguments. Through it, the Church has allowed the poor and meek to correct the high and lofty, as St. Therese corrected the popes. You don’t offer arguments, so where is your authority?
Instead, you pretend to be a scholar by dropping bits of Hebrew into your writings,and by appealing to what “ancient Jews” believed. Yet, in fact, you have previously indicated that you are not Jewish. You have demonstrated no particular expertise in what ancient Jews believed. You have on several times revealed that your knowledge of Hebrew is limited to your chosen buzz words. You try to convince people you are an expert, but you are not.
Yet, I did not dismiss your statements. You will notice I did not state that your reasoning were false, your logic invalid or your assertions. I only pointed out how you had not demonstrated your reasoning sufficiently... and I always noted, “yet,” because I did not presume you couldn’t make a strong argument.
You did not take the opportunity to strengthen your argument, or explain yourself, or secure your footing in your cascade of presumptions. You instead chose a personal attack.
My faith does not rest on which day Christ was born. The ancients had a valid, Christian reason to suppose it was on Dec. 25th. While the arguments that such a date was pagan in origin are demonstrably false, extending from atheistic slander, there is no doctrinal certainty that the date is correct; it is admittedly supposed at after the fact. Therefore, if you suppose I have a doctrinal reason to oppose you, you are false. But if you want to convince me of your argument, you will have to do better.