Everythingg
King-Over-Kingz
*Tells poster that posting smilies doesn't mean anything, while posting smilies in his response*
Sorry, just had to point that out. :cottonmouthlaugh:
Or in other words
![mjlol :mjlol: :mjlol:](https://www.thecoli.com/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/mjlol.png)
But a "
![ufdup :ufdup: :ufdup:](https://www.thecoli.com/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/ufdup.png)
![sas2 :sas2: :sas2:](https://www.thecoli.com/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/sass2.png)
*Tells poster that posting smilies doesn't mean anything, while posting smilies in his response*
Sorry, just had to point that out. :cottonmouthlaugh:
*Tells poster that posting smilies doesn't mean anything, while posting smilies in his response*
Sorry, just had to point that out. :cottonmouthlaugh:
That's what this dude @Everythingg fails to realize. He is so ingrained in his position that he can't even see where he defeats his own arguments by his own contradicting statements.
All of this verified history concerning the Torah as well as the New Testament, but he claims he has this hidden knowledge about the name of the Most High.
Jesus said that there will be those that hate him, and reject him without a cause; @Everythingg is DEMONSTRATING that very well.![]()
Everythingg said:What?
You doing everything except addressing what I said. Again, the date of December 25 was being celebrated as a PAGAN holiday
This date was not connected with the birth of Tammuz. Tammuz's death and descent into the underworld was commemorated during the summer solstice (nowhere near December 25), and there is scant evidence for any commemoration of the god's return; whether or not there are any references to the 'resurrection' (not 'rebirth'), of Tammuz, is a matter of scholarly dispute.
~Prosic, 'The development and symbolism of Passover until 70 CE', p. 84 (2004)
Saturnalia wasn't on December 25, it was typically celebrated on December 17, sometimes from December 14 to 17, and even when it was later extended to a week it still ended on December 23, not December 25.
~Versnel, 'Inconsistencies in Greek and Roman Religion: Transition and reversal in myth', p. 165 (1993)
The earliest reference found to Mithras being born on December 25, is in the anti-Catholic work of Paul Jablonski, an 18th century Protestant attempting to argue that the Catholic Church had become paganized, and that the date of Christmas was simply a heretical adoption of a pagan festivity, specifically the celebration of the birth of Mithras.
~Paul Ernest Jablonski, 'De origine festi nativitatis Christi', in te Water (ed.), 'Pavli Ernesti Iablonskii Opuscula', volume 3, p. 317 (1809)
Current scholarship typically dismisses the idea that identification of December 25 as the date of Jesus' birth was predicated on adoption, co-option, or replacement of pagan equinox festivities such as those for 'Sol Invictus', especially given the lack of evidence for such a pagan festival on this date prior to the Christian fixation on December 25 as the birth of Jesus.
Compounding this is the fact that during the very time that December 25 was adopted widely by the Church as the date of Jesus' birth, the key dates for festive activities in celebration of Sol were in October and August, not December.
~Roll, 'Toward the Origins of Christmas', p. 107 (1995)
Its only contradicting when yall do the cac christian thing and take sentences out of context. Posting smilies as you're doing AGAIN, without addressing what was said does not mean anything. You cant keep up,so this is what you do.
2. No matter your ducking, the point is there is no reason to believe he "legitimately" came up with the date when people were celebrating their pagan holidays on or around that date BEFORE he "legitimately" came up with the date.
............What holiday and by who?
Your evidence is lacking.............
I'm out. No sense arguing with a person who doesn't realize I've destroyed their argument. :cottonmouthlaugh:
Some shyt straight out of an X-Men comic book.
Everythingg said:You gonna answer or keep playing duck duck goose?![]()
Dafunkdoc_Unlimited said:That 'criticism' has as much validity as claiming that Christians' day of worship is due to pagan influence simply because all the days of the week were named after pagan gods BEFORE the establishment of the religion.
Only person ducking....is YOU.
![]()
Why is it so hard to believe that?Judaism makes much more sense to me. I believe Jesus was a good man, but the holy man/son of God![]()
It just doesn't make sense at all.Why is it so hard to believe that?
explain why notIt just doesn't make sense at all.