Christmas Before Christ? The Surprising Story

United Church of God ^ | 12/200 | Jerold Aust

[2sheep]

>Set, Satan, and Shaitan are the same. "Satan" is a Hebrew word for the pagan Egyptian Set. Satan, Shaitan, Set or Seth ("Set-hn" as spoken in the ancient Hebrew) is a pagan entity, the "adversary" of Judaic theology. (A "pagan" is anyone not Judaic, Christian or Muslim.)

I don't have time to get into this today, but will comment on just that one statement.  It is not clear if you are lumping Judaism, Christian and Islam in one group as serving the same God.  If you are, you err.  Muslims, as evidenced by their "fruit" of suicide-bombing, murdering, gang-raping and lying their way into Islamizing the world, are of their father the devil, Satan.  The Bible defines Satan as a being created by G~d as an adversary.  In these endtimes Satan will be revealed in the body of a man whom G~d will destroy.

[Aric2000]

And the broad definition covers it.

I am a Pagan, what type is my business, NOT yours.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

It is not clear if you are lumping Judaism, Christian and Islam in one group as serving the same God.

I am using the primary dictionary definition of "pagan." Islam is an idolatry that worships a rock. Another example of a contravention of fact in dictionaries. (I mentioned this with the word "typhoon.")

-

The Bible defines Satan as a being created by G~d as an adversary.

The Bible defines Satan in the original language as follows:

Which significant names (Satan, Devil, Abaddon) set not forth to us any individual person, as proper names do, but only an office or quality, and are therefore appellatives, which ought not to have been left untranslated (as they are in the Latin and modern Bibles), because thereby they seem to be the proper names of demons, and men are the more easily seduced to believe the doctrine of devils, which at that time was the religion of the Gentiles, and contrary to that of Moses, and of Christ. (Hobbes)

Also, Satan is first mentioned in the Book of Job (the only place you will find it in the Old Testament). What is the Hebrew translation, again?

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

I am a Pagan, what type is my business, NOT yours.

Question: Then why even say so, only to get offended when asked?

Answer: Because you know so little about what you claim to be.

A mask to hide your true self when looking in a mirror.

[Aric2000]

I am a Pagan, what type is my business, NOT yours.

Question: Then why even say so, only to get offended when asked?

I was not offended by you asking, I was offended by your judgemental and holier then thou atitude, for an atheist, you sure sound like a fundamentalist.

Answer: Because you know so little about what you claim to be.

I know EXACTLY what I believe, it's history, etc, etc. I just do not care, it is NOT all that important to me, I am not a prostletizer, what is good for you, is fine with me. your criticism, save it for someone you can convert.

A mask to hide your true self when looking in a mirror.

I know my true self, that is why I am what I am. I have NO trouble looking in a mirror, but it looks like you are still searching for an answer. Good luck, hopefully your answer will bring you the happiness you seek. My answer is my own, it is NOT for you, it is NOT even for my wife and children, they must find their own path. I have chosen mine, it is only fair that I allow them to choose theirs, and you as well.

I hope you find your answers, but do not expect any help from me in that regard. You seem to know the history, and definitions etc, but that is not ALL there is, and until you realize that, you will NEVER find the answer to YOUR question.

[2sheep]

>...is first mentioned in the Book of Job (the only place you will find it in the Old Testament). What is the Hebrew translation, again?

It is found 15 places in OT (55 times in 49 verses in whole Bible:  Blue Letter Bible ):  1Ch 21:1; Job 1:6-9,12; 2:1-4,6-7; Ps 109:6; Zec 3:1-2.

Hebrew: - variously:  an opponent; especially (with the article prefixed), the arch-enemy of good:--adversary, withstand. ... to attack, (figuratively) accuse:--(be an) adversary, resist. ... a traducer ... false accuser, devil, slanderer. ... dung.

Greek:
Abaddon = of Hebrew origin (11); a destroying angel:--Abaddon.
Apollyon = a destroyer (i.e. S___):--Apollyon.

BTW, your Greek logic came from Egyptian occult per a Derek Prince book we are reading, Ye Shall Expel Demons.  He was a Greek and Latin scholar, became a minister and later learned Hebrew and Aramaic.  He ministered in deliverance for over 50 years.

Our interests seem to be poles apart.  I study G~d and you are fascinated with the enemy.

[Aric2000]

I study G~d and you are fascinated with the enemy.

And who would the enemy be?

I am not your enemy, I just choose not to believe what you do, I do not force my beliefs down anyones throat. I do not consider you an enemy, do you consider me one?

[2sheep]

My post was directed to Sir Dashwood, not you.  If you review his recent posts he is defining "the enemy" by name frequently.  I am not forcing beliefs down your throat and leave you to worship what you choose.  Moses, Elijah and Jesus all said, "pick sides" and you have, and that is a far sight better than the apostate church which has chosen the lukewarm middle and lately has been choosing regularly the occult in following Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings and Christmas.

[Aric2000]

I was just asking a question.

No need to get touchy...

[2sheep]

I wasn't being touchy, even though you may have perceived it that way.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

It is just as I had said, only in Job. You are again referring me to a translation, not the original language those books were written in. What was the language used in Job? Who wrote Job? (Now, that is a greatly disputed question among Biblical scholars, both Christian and Judaic).

I study G~d and you are fascinated with the enemy.

What enemy would that be? The Enemy of Israel? Yes. That is indeed one of my enemies...

Part III. Of a Christian Commonwealth.

Chap. xxxviii. Of Eternal Life, Hell, Salvation, and Redemption. [13]And because by the Enemy, the Accuser, and Destroyer, is meant the enemy of them that shall be in the kingdom of God, therefore if the kingdom of God after the resurrection be upon the earth (as in the former Chapter I have shewn by Scripture it seems to be), the Enemy and his kingdom must be on earth also. For so also was it in the time before the Jews had deposed God. For God's kingdom was in Israel, and the nations round about were the kingdoms of the Enemy... (Hobbes)

I trust Hobbes' interpretations in Leviathan more than any other. Not a single scholar of the Bible with any credibility in the Christian world will attempt to dispute Hobbes with direct Biblical reference. Not one. Find one for me, please...

[Aric2000]

Sorry, should have followed the conversation back a few, my fault.

My apologies...

[MWS]

On the contrary, I was not blessing someone that I saw as cursing me. I was blessing someone that I see acting out of the best intentions and out of a sincere love of Christ. However, I do believe you are quite mislead and very wrong on the matter about which you are arguing about. But, this does not mean that I believe you are my enemy in the slightest.

I have read this thread. I knew it would be wiser to stay away, not because I am wrong but rather because some on this thread are so convinced that Christmas is an evil thing and arguing in such a case is pointless. I know that this all seems very clear in your mind, but I assure you that to the casual observer what you are saying does not make much sense. The verses that are being quoted against Christmas are out of context. Christmas is an idolatrous holiday when it becomes a worship of material things. That it once had pagan connotations does not necessarily reflect on the holiday now, when it is properly celebrated.

Christ has a knack for taking the things of the world, transforming them, and making them holy. This is what he does with each and every one of us when we decide to follow Him. It is true that Christmas once was the celebration of winter solstice, a major pagan holiday. This does not make the day itself evil, but rather the celebrations that once took place upon it. What is wrong, though, with taking a day that once had evil connotations with it and instead giving it a positive meaning related to Christ? Certainly the 25th is not the actual date of birth for our Lord. However, this does not mean that we ought not celebrate the day upon which He was born! The Incarnation is among the greatest of events this world has seen! God has become man, to live among us, to suffer, and to ultimately die for us! This is certainly nothing small and insignificant. Certainly, we ought remember this event every day of our lives, but oftentimes it does help to have a specific day devoted to particular events such as this so that we may bring it before our minds and devote our attentions to it.

Certainly many will be deceived and fall to the deceptions of the evil one. However, it would be foolish of us to accuse every Christian who celebrates Christmas of partaking in this deception. To do so ignores the very nature of this great evil. The great deception involves things such as the denial of the Trinity, of salvation, and in embracing the world in ways which Christians are never permitted to do so. This great fall is taking place all around us. Look at the many people who call themselves "Christians" yet believe that abortion is acceptable before God! Look at the many churches that concern themselves more with "community" than with Christ! There are many who are "Christian" in name and yet certainly do not place their faith in Him throughout their daily lives. These are the deceived, not those who wish to maintain Christmas as a rememberance of the incarnation of Christ. Not everyone who participates in Christmas is a Secular Humanist or a worshipper of Mammon. What is essential, rather, is that we as Christians keep the holiday in its proper perspective. Certainly it is not wrong to be joyous and to celebrate.

Again, I emphasize that I certainly do not view you as an enemy but rather a friend in Christ who happens to be wrong on this matter. I really do wish the great blessings of Christ upon you.

[2sheep]

It is a sad day in church history when wiccans, pagans and atheists have more light on this subject than Christians.  The church has been given over to the occult line upon line, precept upon precept.  It has relegated "Truth" to just a matter of anyone's opinion.  It didn't beware.  Jesus, said, "If you will, I will..." and "I would have gathered  you,  ... but ye would not."  What a tragedy!  He tries to restore Truth to the deceived Church but it just says, No.  Paul said, Ac 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.  The church gave the wolves pulpit time and voting rights and said all those who disagree with the majority opinion must be false.  They point to how loving they can be because they have befriended wolves and sinners of every sort and are just tolerant of sinful behavior.  They crucify afresh the Son of G~d and put him to an open shame.

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Isa 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

Mt 6:23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!

[MWS]

You are assuming what you are trying to prove. Christmas did not become a Christian holiday because Christianity was infiltrated by wiccans, pagans, and atheists. In this case it was not society that infiltrated Christianity but rather Christianity that infiltrated society. The early Christians took a major festive holiday of the pagans, threw out all of its trappings, changed its meaning, and effectively made it into a Christian holiday for the sake of evangelization.

As I had shown, the Christmas Tree does not come from the ancient pagan tradition of worshipping trees, but rather as a refutation of that. The Christmas tree itself came to represent Christ Himself. It is true that certainly parts of the holiday have been re-paganized over the course of the last century. "Santa Claus", as we have him today, is not representative of the traditional observation of the holiday. Neither is the gross materialism that society tends to relish in at this time of year. However, as much as one may rightfully hate these corruptions, it cannot be denied that the birth of Christ (the very incarnation of God here on earth) ought to be celebrated and recognized. If you can recognize this fact, what does it matter upon which day it is done? It really ought to be done on a day that has been traditionally equated with reverence and festivities.

Christmas is not a sign of submission on the part of Christians to the powers of the occult. To say so is sadly misguided and it is my duty as your brother Christian to correct you for saying so. It is, rather, a celebration of something quite holy that truly ought to be celebrated. To deny this is to deny the significance of Christ's life here on earth and is ultimately to deny the importance of our very salvations. God has become man and has lived among us. If this is unimportant, what can be termed important?

[2sheep]

>You are assuming what you are trying to prove. Christmas did not become a Christian holiday because Christianity was infiltrated by wiccans, pagans, and atheists. In this case it was not society that infiltrated Christianity but rather Christianity that infiltrated society.

G~d hates mixture!  He calls people to come out and be holy, not to syncretize with the heathen and the unfruitful works of darkness.  See Willow Creek link below.***  Christianity today has so infiltrated society that it has become like unto the heathen in most sinful respects.  Syncretism is a tool of the devil to make the Church lukewarm.  It is clear in the words of Jesus that He can tell who is true and who is false and one big way of doing that is looking at who keeps his commandments and who doesn't and makes up new rules, times and seasons.

>The early Christians took a major festive holiday of the pagans, threw out all of its trappings, changed its meaning, and effectively made it into a Christian holiday for the sake of evangelization.

"Evangelization" is a buzz word used by the globalist change agents in the seeker-sensitive apostate churches.  In the days of Constantine the Romans took the Jewish faith as explained by Jesus Christ, changed it by eliminating the Jewish Feasts, all things Jewish and murdered the Jews who held to those beliefs.  In their place and instead of the Torah which the L~rd told them to keep, they installed Satanic rites of Mithracism, mother and child worship from Nimrod and much more.  It is set out here:  Too Long in the Sun. (this was linked in #15 and #234 above but you must have missed it the first time you read the thread.)   They changed what Jesus said and required  instead that for Jews to convert to Christianity, they had to make this oath.
 

A Profession Of Faith From The Church Of Constantinople in the year 325 C.E.(A.D.) Under The Emperor Constantine

I renounce all customs, rites, legalisms. unleavened breads & sacrifices of lambs of the Hebrews, and all other feasts of the Hebrews, sacrifices, prayers, aspersions, purifications, sanctifications and propitiations and fasts, and new moons, and Sabbaths, and superstitions, and hymns and chants and observances and Synagogues, and the food and drink of The Hebrews; in one word, I renounce everything Jewish, every law, rite and custom and if afterwards I shall wish to deny and return to Jewish superstition, or shall be found eating with The Jews, or feasting with them, or secretly conversing and condemning the Christian religion instead of openly confuting them and condemning their vain faith, then let the trembling of Gehazi cleave to me, as well as the legal punishments to which I acknowledge myself liable. And may I be anathema in the world to come, and may my soul be set down with Satan and the devils.

Source: Parks, James The Conflict Of The Church And The Synagogue Atheneum, New York, 1974, pp. 397 - 398.

Jews were murdered by so-called Christians to fulfill the demands of false prophets and wolves in sheeps clothing.  When a deceived Christian bows to demands of wolves and murders a Jew who is faithful to the Torah, it will obviously not be the "Christian" murderer "saved by grace" standing before the L~rd on Judgment Day being told, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant."  It is the antichrist who thought to change times and laws then to deceive the Church just as it is the same antichrist spirit who seeks to do it now.

You might also look at this one.  Would Your Church Allow You To Be Like Jesus?

>As I had shown, the Christmas Tree does not come from the ancient pagan tradition...

You are incorrect in that assumption and shows you have done no research or just denied everything you don't like.  Using your model, you could use this as one of the elves for your Christmas decor, as it suits the phallic nature of the tree and you can "spread the word" at the same time, enjoy your spiritual fornication and have the ultimate in Syncretization and feel safe while doing it.

>...it cannot be denied that the birth of Christ (the very incarnation of God here on earth) ought to be celebrated and recognized. If you can recognize this fact, what does it matter upon which day it is done?

It can be denied because it was not his birth that he wanted celebrated but his death and resurrection and the reasons for that, which was discussed on this thread but you missed that too.  He was born in the fall and if one had to pick any date, why not pick Feast of Trumpets?  Why pick the date most loved by Satanists of the whole year?  Because it benefits the occult.  If any date will do, if you call the shots and make the rules, and change dates and times, then perhaps you don't need a L~rd that speaks, because you deny what He has said to do and you do what is right in your own eyes.

Syncretization means to reconcile and unite (differing religious beliefs, for example), especially with partial success or a heterogeneous result.  It just more paving for the broad way to destruction.  It uses the propaganda technique called the Hegelian Dialiectic.  They bring two sides in opposition (thesis and anti-thesis) and have trained people to accept the Synthesis or Consensus (which is what the globalists intended at the start).  That Consensus has led to the exaltation of evil people and the murder of innocents.  It promotes the lukewarm, middle of the road, broad way to destruction.  For any who haven't done it, they should Google some of these terms for the propaganda techniques used for one world takeover:  Hegelian Dialectic - Diaprax - Delphi Technique - Gramsci

Here's a start:  100 ~ 105 ~  24 ~  25 ~

 The Hegelian Dialectic and The New World Order
 Introduction - A Theory, and the Hegelian Dialectic
 The Meaning of "Original Sin"
 Toward the Total State by William Norman Grigg re Gramsci
 Who is Antonio Gramsci? You Better Learn!!!

 The intent is to destroy the nations, not unite them:  Allah and the Real-World-Order

 The Diabolical System of DIAPRAX
 Online book:  THE DIALECTIC & PRAXIS: DIAPRAX AND THE END OF THE AGES by Dean Gotcher
 Paul Proctor -- Diaprax Goes To Seminary
 Paul Proctor -- Archives
*** WILLOW CREEK... HEGELIAN DIALECTIC & THE NEW WORLD ORDER ***
 Concerned Members - Links Library
 A Complete Explanation Of Hegel from an Unbiased Viewpoint
 Brainwashing in America - Berit Kjos
 Conforming the Church to the New Millennium - Berit Kjos
 The UN Plan for Your Mental Health
 Local Agenda - The U.N. Plan for Your Community
 How the Hegelian Dialectic is Transforming The World To Bring In The New World Order
 MIND CONTROL

The Hegelian Dialectic

"The dialectical method of  Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel  (1770-1831) consists of two main steps: the invention of artificial extremes (``thesis'' and ``antithesis'') which superficially conflict with each other, and the synthesis from that conflict of a goal, which is made to appear to be the product of consensus. The artificial extremes are chosen and propagandized (marginalizing the population) in such a way that the goal is naturally synthesized from them. It is, essentially, a trick - a fraud. It is a strategy of ideological divide-and-conquer.  The dialectic ruse dissipates the energy and coherency of its targets - unless they recognize the ruse as such.

Hegel was a fountain of awful ideas, liberally cribbed by Marx and Engels, by the sickly and neurologically defective Mary Baker Eddy (founder of the Church of Christ, Scientist, which - as evidenced by its concept of "Malicious Animal Magnetism" - is in fact similar to Scientology), and by the Unitarians (who are historical proponents of universal government schooling in pursuit of socialist indoctrination).  Hegel was an influence on famed phenomenologist Martin Heidegger  (1889-1978) (NSDAP#3125894, 1933-May-1) (author of Being and Time (1927) and a critic of Hegel's methods), on French existentialist phenomenologist and Marxist  Jean-Paul Sartre  (1905-1980) (author of The Transcendence of the Ego (1937) and Being and Nothingness (1943)), and on "spiritualist" utopian Marxist philosopher  Ernst Bloch  (Das Prinzip Hoffnung (The Principle of Hope)).

A central precept of the Hegelian ethic is that people are principally motivated by the desire to receive the approval and recognition of others, and to avoid their disapproval.*Since this motivation is not predicated on the reasonableness of that approval or disapproval, the principle is a mechanism by which an individual delegates arbitrary control to others. This is, obviously, an enabling principle of collectivism. By encouraging people to embrace this tendency, and amplify it into a preeminent mechanism of decision making, Hegelianism works directly to subvert the individual." ... Source ~ http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/intro2.html#theory

*People have been trained to be man-pleasers, not God pleasers.

Mt 24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ;*** and shall deceive many.

Mt 24:11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

*** or "I am a Christian..."

[fso301]

BTW, what is the steeple on most churches all about?

Depends on how Freudian one is.

I suspect you view it as a phallus.

I however view them as architectural features used primarily as landmarks. In former times, if you were new to an area or just turned around, steeples served as reference points, sort of a daylight beacon.

If you'll notice, few churches of recent construction have them. They're expensive to build, expensive to maintain and have lost most of their former landmark qualities.

I really don't view obelisks as phalluses either. I view them as geometric statuary. Builders, be they pagan, Jewish, Christian or whatever are all subject to the same laws of physics and materials. Certainly if the Egyptians were capable of building the Sphynx, they would have been able to erect a giant phallus whith more realistic appearance than the obelisks.

Of course when taking an ink spot test, I don't see sexual imagery in every spot either. Such can't be said of others.

Read #266

I did and don't know where he got his information from. Suspect he read Jeremiah 10 and thought it referred to Christmas Trees. He then heard someone say it was a phallus without knowing the person meant the Ashera Pole (maypole/totempole) the passage referenced. He then came to the erroneous conclusion ancient pagans viewed the Christmas tree as a phallus.

Do you have an alternate explanation for the tree and its symbolism?

My understanding is the Christmas Tree first appeared in literature about 500 years ago in Germany. Prior to that, Northern Europeans would bring evergreens into the home during the winter months believing the evergreen to have some extra "life force". Of course, all of us bring plants indoors now. Even realtors advise planting some evergreens around the home in order to present a live appearance if the house has to be listed in the winter months.

Hey, interesting thread we have here.

[2sheep]

>I really don't view obelisks as phalluses either.

Any chance you are a Mason?

 Too Long in the Sun:  Christmas
 Christmas: Flee from Idolatry by R. F. Becker
 The Christmas Tree
 Christmas: Its Origin and Foundational Roots
 The Spirit Behind Christmas
 Christmas, Pagan Parallels to Dusares’ Birthday
 Dismantling the three ho's of the Jolly Season
 What does the Bible say about:  Witchraft, Astrology & Magic
 Birth of Yeshua (Jesus) during Succoth (Feast of Tabernacles)
 What day was Jesus born?
 Christmas or Saturnalia?

 The True Origin of Christmas
   1. Important History About Ancient Babylon
   2. Who Was Really Born on December 25?
   3. Are Christmas Day and Halloween Related to Sun Worship?
   4. What About Santa Claus and Christmas
   5. Was Christ Really a Winter Baby?
   6. When Was Christ Really Born?
   7. How Many Wise Men Visited Christ?
   8. What About Celebrating Easter?
   9. What Should We Do Now?

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

You are assuming what you are trying to prove.

It's called begging the question, an informal fallacy. Right on the money.

-

It is true that certainly parts of the holiday have been re-paganized over the course of the last century. "Santa Claus", as we have him today, is not representative of the traditional observation of the holiday. Neither is the gross materialism that society tends to relish in at this time of year.

Among a great number of other things. (I could make a rather lengthy list.) Idolatrous vanities, glamourous glorifications.

I have never spoken against the Christian celebration of Christmas, but I do question the modern incarnation of the idolatry and spiritism similar to Halloween... Question the Practice of Halloween... Or the Christian Practice of Satanism

The absolutism of sectarian dogma based upon personal interpretation of Scripture, in many cases, only serves to defeat the most valid arguments a lot of people can agree with or be amenable to a revealation concerning the ideas presented. Approaching a subject from a point of conviction rather than condemnation is a lesson that needs to learned.

[MWS]

G~d hates mixture! He calls people to come out and be holy, not to syncretize with the heathen and the unfruitful works of darkness. See Willow Creek link below.*** Christianity today has so infiltrated society that it has become like unto the heathen in most sinful respects. Syncretism is a tool of the devil to make the Church lukewarm. It is clear in the words of Jesus that He can tell who is true and who is false and one big way of doing that is looking at who keeps his commandments and who doesn't and makes up new rules, times and seasons.

Christmas as it exists today is not a syncretized version of the old pagan holiday. Syncretizing involves an attempt to unite and harmonize two things that would otherwise be opposed. I have put forward that what the early Christians did was not a case of syncretizing but rather a case of using a particular day to celebrate a Christian concept- the incarnation of Christ- in order to pull people away from the pagan celebration. This does not mean that the old trappings were retained, as you have been assuming throughout this thread. If the old trappings and meanings had been maintained, then you could make a case that syncretizing had occured. It is incumbent on you to show that this has taken place. This would be far more productive than simply throwing out accusations and claiming that all Christians who take part in Christmas are deceived and have fallen. You certainly are not convincing anyone but yourself of the worthiness of your cause, but rather pushing them away from your message. (And no, this is not because they are "deceived by the devil", but rather because you are speaking with the words of men expressing the ideas of men rather than by the guidance of God)

"Evangelization" is a buzz word used by the globalist change agents in the seeker-sensitive apostate churches.

On the contrary, evangelization is a real word with a real meaning that is at the very basis of what it means to be Christian. Evangelization means to go forth and spread the gospel of Christ. This is what we are commanded to do as Christians. If some have "hijacked" the meaning of true evangelization and perverted it, this does not reflect on "evangelization" itself but rather upon those who perverted it. It does not follow that suddenly we are no longer called to evangelize because some have perverted its meaning.

In the days of Constantine the Romans took the Jewish faith as explained by Jesus Christ, changed it by eliminating the Jewish Feasts, all things Jewish and murdered the Jews who held to those beliefs. In their place and instead of the Torah which the L~rd told them to keep, they installed Satanic rites of Mithracism, mother and child worship from Nimrod and much more. It is set out here: Too Long in the Sun. (this was linked in #15 and #234 above but you must have missed it the first time you read the thread.) They changed what Jesus said and required instead that for Jews to convert to Christianity, they had to make this oath.

I read it the first time, but I considered it to be a quite silly assertion not even worth the effort to refute. It revolves around a post hoc fallacy. The Jewish rites and customs were rejected not out of a desire to "pervert" Christianity so that they could be replaced by pagan rites, but rather because they were signs of the Old Covenant that were done away with the New. Christ had come in glory, had died, and had been resurrected. There was no more need to hope for a messiah, to make sacrifices in the temple, to maintain customs such as circumcision (one need only read Paul's Epistles in the New Testament to know this), or to abstain from certain foods. It was the apostles themselves that did away with the customs in the first place, not the government of Constantine. These latter Christians were merely enforcing what the apostles had set forward in the first place.

As for the so-called "introductions" from Mithracism, simple research into the works of the Church Fathers will show that many of the rites that are claimed to originate from there had existed prior to the legalization of Christianity. That there are parallels in the pagan cults is not proof that they were actually caused by those cults. It is very much akin to the assertions of some that Christianity itself has its roots in the "pagan mystery religions".

You are incorrect in that assumption and shows you have done no research or just denied everything you don't like.

I do hope that the irony here is not lost on you, my friend.

I am not incorrect in that statement. I had posted the story earlier in the thread. Simple research on your part would substantiate the story. A search on St. Boniface will show that this wasn't a story made up on the spot.

Using your model, you could use this as one of the elves for your Christmas decor, as it suits the phallic nature of the tree and you can "spread the word" at the same time, enjoy your spiritual fornication and have the ultimate in Syncretization and feel safe while doing it.

Yes, with this gross picture you have shown an example where Christianity has been syncretized with the world. However, you are now arguing by false analogy, because you have not shown that this has occurred with Christmas. The only arguments supporting your claims in this case have been post hoc arguments that necessitate substantiation that a true casual relationship exists.

It can be denied because it was not his birth that he wanted celebrated but his death and resurrection and the reasons for that, which was discussed on this thread but you missed that too.

Yes, it was discussed earlier, but you were still wrong! Simply because you argued something earlier does not mean that you really proved your point! And you are dead wrong with your statement here. For you to deny the importance of the incarnation of Christ and reduce the importance of his life on earth to his death and resurrection effectively places you outside the fold of Christianity. His death and resurrection were of the utmost importance, but His actual incarnation is every bit as important. Indeed, his death and resurrection have absolutely no meaning whatsoever if he had not come in the first place! There is far more to the Gospel than merely the death and resurrection. To downplay the importance of the fact that God became man to live and teach among us is gross heresy. The celebration of Christ's birth is a celebration of the fact that God saw fit to become one of us and to fulfill the redemption He had promised. This is an essential part of the Faith that saves us.

He was born in the fall and if one had to pick any date, why not pick Feast of Trumpets? Why pick the date most loved by Satanists of the whole year? Because it benefits the occult. If any date will do, if you call the shots and make the rules, and change dates and times, then perhaps you don't need a L~rd that speaks, because you deny what He has said to do and you do what is right in your own eyes.

Your pharisaism is most disturbing. Certainly it is not the day that is important, but rather the ideal and the concept expressed on that day. Secondly, I was under the impression that Halloween was the day most loved by Satanists- make up your minds. Thirdly, no one is picking up the benefits of the occult- the Christianization of the day effectively stomped out the pagan holiday, not syncretized it. Fourthly, if God did not set a specific date to celebrate his incarnation, then it was certainly something left to the liberty of those within the Church.

You still have yet to substantiate your claims that Christianity and Christmas was syncretized in a manner that does not rely on post hoc fallacies. I am not going to bother with this thread until this is done, as I have much more important things to turn my attention to than the claims of a pharisee.

(And yes, I still say these things in love out of a concern for your soul, because I see that you have strayed into several grave errors.)