Now you are showing a lack of knowledge of History. The early Church held to the Jewish understanding that if a man was holy and lived 50 years, he died exactly 50 years after he was born. Therefore, they decided that Jesus died on the day he was born. They had two dates in mind, one in April and one in March. They chose the March date. However, in the process, they realized that the important part was not his birth, but his conception, so the March date was fixed for that and December 25 became his birth date. The power of the Holy SPirit was shown when this date was used to help convert those who were pagan.
A cute story but it is false
Not all of Origen’s contemporaries agreed that Christ’s birthday shouldn’t be celebrated, and some began to speculate on the date (actual records were apparently long lost). Clement of Alexandria (c.150-c.215) favored May 20 but noted that others had argued for April 18, April 19, and May 28. Hippolytus (c.170-c.236) championed January 2. November 17, November 20, and March 25 all had backers as well. A Latin treatise written around 243 pegged March 21, because that was believed to be the date on which God created the sun. Polycarp (c.69-c.155) had followed the same line of reasoning to conclude that Christ’s birth and baptism most likely occurred on Wednesday, because the sun was created on the fourth day.
The eventual choice of December 25, made perhaps as early as 273, reflects a convergence of Origen’s concern about pagan gods and the church’s identification of God’s son with the celestial sun. December 25 already hosted two other related festivals: natalis solis invicti (the Roman “birth of the unconquered sun”), and the birthday of Mithras, the Iranian “Sun of Righteousness” whose worship was popular with Roman soldiers. The winter solstice, another celebration of the sun, fell just a few days earlier. Seeing that pagans were already exalting deities with some parallels to the true deity, church leaders decided to commandeer the date and introduce a new festival.
The pagan origins of the Christmas date, as well as pagan origins for many Christmas customs (gift-giving and merrymaking from Roman Saturnalia; greenery, lights, and charity from the Roman New Year; Yule logs and various foods from Teutonic feasts), have always fueled arguments against the holiday. “It’s just paganism wrapped with a Christian bow,” naysayers argue. But while kowtowing to worldliness must always be a concern for Christians, the church has generally viewed efforts to reshape culture—including holidays—positively. As a theologian asserted in 320, “We hold this day holy, not like the pagans because of the birth of the sun, but because of him who made it.”
christianitytoday.com/ch/news/2000/dec08.html
And you still have not shown me where we cannot celebrate his birth or his resurection.
I have no issue with the celebration I have issue that in both cases you have adopted a pagan holiday
So God NEVER allowed the Jews to make stautes? Please answer that question.
God specifically instructed the cheribum to be placed on the arc. This was not a license to make idols.
Prove it. SHow me your faith in the first century. How about this, show it to me in the first 14 centuries.
The 1st century congregation had strong Jewish influence. The RCC has cut itself off from the root (Judiasm) and believes that it has replaced Isreal instead of being grafted in. Repent now!
Continous revelation sure sounds Morman to me.
And it continues to this day.
:sad_bye: :takeoff: :tiphat: :tiphat: