bjs wrote:
SallyF wrote:
bjs wrote:
[
Replying to Zzyzx]
I was using short-hand to simplify things. The formal Mass came later, but associating Jesus birth with December 25 was much earlier. The association with that date is clearly the more important aspect of this argument. Dwelling on the distention seems like pointless pedantry.
Is stealing the birthdays of other supposed god-men part of the fraudulence ?
See post five.
I suppose that we could accuse the worshipers of Mithra of stealing the birthday of Jesus. Personally, I would want to see some clear evidence that this was intentional fraudulence before making the accusation.
I always find a delightful irony in Christians asking for evidence for things other than evidence for biblical fantasy.
Nonetheless, I posed a question here.
I did not make a direct accusation.
You could have demonstrated that Christianity is in no way fraudulent.
But you didn't.
You could have demonstrated that the Jesus character was a real god-man and all the others were just make-believe.
But you didn't.
You could have demonstrated that the Jesus character had primacy when it came to birthday celebrations around the Winter Solstice.
But you didn't.
You could have acknowledged that the Catholic Church itself acknowledges "pagan" (I prefer "traditional indigenous") origins for the un-birthday of their Divine Leader.
But you didn't.
And our very good friends in the Watchtower acknowledge the same.
It sure looks to me like the Christian elves have stolen the Mithras presents.
Happy Holidays ...!