Ubenedictus:


It is not a claim, it is a request based on observation, you presented ref sources that claims christmas is related to pagan celebration, i countered by addressing each festival individually, i also came across ref sources that claims this connection have no basis, you quoted encyclopedia britanica, but the same enclyclopedia was updated recently and repudated that claim.

This is what it say

This view presumes—as does the view associating the origin of Christmas on December 25 with pagan celebrations of the winter equinox—that Christians appropriated pagan names and holidays for their highest festivals.
Given the determination with which Christians combated all forms of paganism, this appears a rather dubious presumption.


as you can see britanica rejected what is previously claimed.

Why will an encyclopedia be wrong?

The answer it simple, it previous source was dubious.

No Sir, you miss the point. The post you responded to isn't talking about replacing Xmas with pagan teaching, rather it is about whether Mithra worshipers celebrated on Dec 25th. You were seeking for a 2nd to 4th century prove. Your words:

simple logic,
the burden of proof lies with the person making the
claim,
the burden of proof lies with you! Show historic proof
that says mithra celebrated is birthday on the 25 of
dec

And I said:

No, you made the clain that only 2nd to 4th century
document is the only valid evidence. Prove that
assertion and also tell us why ur encyclopedia is
wrong. Waiting...

So pls respond to that.

I quoted Mcclinton and Strong's encyclopedia on thread 11 above, not britannica.

JMAN05:


No Sir, you miss the point. The post you responded to isn't talking about replacing Xmas with pagan teaching, rather it is about whether Mithra worshipers celebrated on Dec 25th. You were seeking for a 2nd to 4th century prove. Your words:



And I said:



So pls respond to that.

it is simply dear, when reference sources conflict, an encyclopedia repudates it former claims then it is clear that we must look for the historic sources.

Reference sources can be wrong that is why there are historic sources. Many sholars have arrived at the conclusion that the socalled pagan christmas link has no historic basis. To prove it wrong we need you to ref a historic source.

Ubenedictus:


it is simply dear, when reference sources conflict, an encyclopedia repudates it former claims then it is clear that we must look for the historic sources.

Reference sources can be wrong that is why there are historic sources. Many sholars have arrived at the conclusion that the socalled pagan christmas link has no historic basis. To prove it wrong we need you to ref a historic source.

1. Catholic encyclopedia, written by your scholars were wrong on Mithra. Yes or No?

2. When did Catholic encyclopedia contradict on Mithra's birth day?

3. Where did this your catholic tutored scholars cook the Mithra's birth day from? Where is there source?

The 3rd question is important, so that we 'll know how to place this claimed "authoritative info".

JMAN05:


1. Catholic encyclopedia, written by your scholars were wrong on Mithra. Yes or No?

Yes

2. When did Catholic encyclopedia contradict on Mithra's birth day?

the catholic encyclopedia was last revised in the 90s it doesn't have a recently uppdated work, it hasn't contradicted itself, but it is contradicted by the more recently updated encyclopedia britanica.

3. Where did this your catholic tutored scholars cook the Mithra's birth day from? Where is there source?

they all used a ref source by usener, he was the one who cooked up the story that scholars have now affirmed have no historic basis. The catholic encyclopedia mentioms its source and usener is mentioned at least 5 times.

The 3rd question is important, so that we 'll know how to place this claimed "authoritative info".

the 3rd question has been aswered.

Ubenedictus:
Yes

Proves.

2. why hasnt any of you challenged that publication nor excommunicated them till date? If none of this has been done, then sorry, your assertion is null and void.

the catholic encyclopedia was last revised in the 90s it doesn't have a recently uppdated work, it hasn't contradicted itself, but it is contradicted by the more recently updated encyclopedia britanica.

Can we see this britannica, on what it says about mithra's birthday as opposed to your encyclopedia. Attach link.

they all used a ref source by usener, he was the one who cooked up the story that scholars have now affirmed have no historic basis. The catholic encyclopedia mentioms its source and usener is mentioned at least 5 times.

Prove that your online encyclopedia used Usener as there source on Mithra's birthday. Tell us where they made such statement.

JMAN05:


Proves.

2. why hasnt any of you challenged that publication nor excommunicated them till date? If none of this has been done, then sorry, your assertion is null and void.



Can we see this britannica, on what it says about mithra's birthday as opposed to your encyclopedia. Attach link.



Prove that your online encyclopedia used Usener as there source on Mithra's birthday. Tell us where they made such statement.

Excuse me...i'm not knowledgeable on the subject under discussion. Just want to inform you that the Catholic Encyclopaedia has zero authority in the Catholic Church.

Papist:

Excuse me...i'm not knowledgeable on the subject under discussion. Just want to inform you that the Catholic Encyclopaedia has zero authority in the Catholic Church.

i already told him this but he decided to be deaf.

Ubenedictus:
i already told him this but he decided to be deaf.

And I've already explained that it is useless to keep the date. The calendar are not accurate ,they are not the same, they are not equal, so the dates should change like its done for ur Easter celebrations .

Papist:

Excuse me...i'm not knowledgeable on the subject under discussion. Just want to inform you that the Catholic Encyclopaedia has zero authority in the Catholic Church.

I need an official statement, stating that what it said on Mithra is against catholic doctrine. Or an oficial statement showing that what is in the encyclopedia is not a correct catholic teaching. Provide it.

Even if the Pope didnt endorse it, which no man has shown me, that does not mean that what it said about catholic is wrong. GET THAT STRAIGHT.

An encyclopedia of ur church has been in circulation for decades, those who wrote it are not termed heretics. They are ur scholars and they claim to provide an authoritative info. Neither the pope nor any of you have sued him for such claim nor excommucated them, and you are here shouting "it has no authority". If I dont believe this international journal, written by men who know the church more than you do, whu should I believe you? Is it your own word on nairaland that has authority?

In as much as an international journal of that kind is concerned, and its writers remain valid catholics, I wont accept that there writeup is wrong. Even if the Pope do not endorse it, it doesnt make the info therein wrong. I would rather say that you guys know little about ur doctrines.

JMAN05:


I need an official statement, stating that what it said on Mithra is against catholic doctrine. Or an oficial statement showing that what is in the encyclopedia is not a correct catholic teaching. Provide it.

Even if the Pope didnt endorse it, which no man has shown me, that does not mean that what it said about catholic is wrong. GET THAT STRAIGHT.

An encyclopedia of ur church has been in circulation for decades, those who wrote it are not termed heretics. They are ur scholars and they claim to provide an authoritative info. Neither the pope nor any of you have sued him for such claim nor excommucated them, and you are here shouting "it has no authority". If I dont believe this international journal, written by men who know the church more than you do, whu should I believe you? Is it your own word on nairaland that has authority?

In as much as an international journal of that kind is concerned, and its writers remain valid catholics, I wont accept that there writeup is wrong. Even if the Pope do not endorse it, it doesnt make the info therein wrong. I would rather say that you guys know little about ur doctrines.

Why do you suppose the Catholic encyclopaedia needs a pope's endorsement or condemnation?

Papist:

Why do you suppose the Catholic encyclopaedia needs a pope's endorsement or condemnation?

The I used stands for authority since he is your head.

JMAN05:


The I used stands for authority since he is your head.

You seem not to get the point. An example of an infallible document would be The Catechism or a dogmatic constitution like Pastor Aertenus. Besides, the date of Christ's birth is not a dogma and therefore Catholics are allowed to speculate about the origins of 25 December without fear of excommunications or anathemas.

Papist:

You seem not to get the point. An example of an infallible document would be The Catechism or a dogmatic constitution like Pastor Aertenus. Besides, the date of Christ's birth is not a dogma and therefore Catholics are allowed to speculate about the origins of 25 December without fear of excommunications or anathemas.

Even the Annunciation?

The issue for now is on mithra. Your encyclopedia can't be dismissed just like that, unless I hear that the man who wrote it is excommunicated. The write up was never under speculation. The writer never even said it as if the matter was under controversy. Of course the date for mithra's birthday is well known.

JMAN05:


Even the Annunciation?

The issue for now is on mithra. Your encyclopedia can't be dismissed just like that, unless I hear that the man who wrote it is excommunicated. The write up was never under speculation. The writer never even said it as if the matter was under controversy. Of course the date for mithra's birthday is well known.

Catholics are excommunicated for denying Catholic dogma. For example denying that the Christ is God. The dogma behind the celebration of the Annunciation and Christ's birth is the Incarnation. If the writer of the Catholic Encyclopaedia article had denied the Incarnation then he/she would be excommunicated. I'm sure i have explained to you that celebrating Christmas on 25 December is not a Catholic dogma. After all calendars are not infallible. In fact some Catholic Churches of the east (Byzantine) celebrate Christmas on a different date than us Latins because they use a different calendar in their liturgy.

dolphinheart:


And I've already explained that it is useless to keep the date. The calendar are not accurate ,they are not the same, they are not equal, so the dates should change like its done for ur Easter celebrations .

will you also say it is useless to keep easter becos easter doesn't fall on the 14th of nisan every year?

JMAN05:

I need an official statement, stating that what it said on Mithra is against catholic doctrine. Or an oficial statement showing that what is in the encyclopedia is not a correct catholic teaching. Provide it.

Even if the Pope didnt endorse it, which no man has shown me, that does not mean that what it said about catholic is wrong. GET THAT STRAIGHT.

An encyclopedia of ur church has been in circulation for decades, those who wrote it are not termed heretics. They are ur scholars and they claim to provide an authoritative info. Neither the pope nor any of you have sued him for such claim nor excommucated them, and you are here shouting "it has no authority". If I dont believe this international journal, written by men who know the church more than you do, whu should I believe you? Is it your own word on nairaland that has authority?

In as much as an international journal of that kind is concerned, and its writers remain valid catholics, I wont accept that there writeup is wrong. Even if the Pope do not endorse it, it doesnt make the info therein wrong. I would rather say that you guys know little about ur doctrines.

the date of christmas is not a dogma, it is an historic enquiry so catholics are free to speculate on it. The writer on the page on the encyclopedia is simply speculating according to the materials he is using, particularly usener.

JMAN05:


Even the Annunciation?

The issue for now is on mithra. Your encyclopedia can't be dismissed just like that, unless I hear that the man who wrote it is excommunicated. The write up was never under speculation. The writer never even said it as if the matter was under controversy. Of course the date for mithra's birthday is well known.

mithras birthday has no historic source! It was cooked up by Usener and adopted by other scholar.

Ubenedictus:


will you also say it is useless to keep easter becos easter doesn't fall on the 14th of nisan every year?

Before I answer you, please are you saying ur Easter date does not align or fall in line with Nissan 14?

Ubenedictus:


mithras birthday has no historic source! It was cooked up by Usener and adopted by other scholar.

That you have not proving. Just saying it a million times changes nothing. Provide a proof. You know where we stopped. Start from there.

Ubenedictus:



the date of christmas is not a dogma, it is an historic enquiry so catholics are free to speculate on it. The writer on the page on the encyclopedia is simply speculating according to the materials he is using, particularly usener.

Provide where he said he was quoting Usener.

I quoted Catholic encyclopedia, not an encyclopedia of another Church. And the person who wrote it is a valid member of your church. his work is a reference material about your church. Provide your church so called official book that said Mithra's birthday is done another day.

If you think an encyclopedia of a church is written any how, please go and write your own and call it "Roman catholic encyclopedia", and write any rubbish you wish inside. I give you just one week, Catholic scholars will storm your house and give you a dirty slap legally. Even your local Father will immediately tell you to go and tire that rubbish or face the music. Do you think you just wake up and write encyclopedia of a church? Are you not an adult? habah! argument. Pls end this puerile point abeg.

Papist:

Catholics are excommunicated for denying Catholic dogma. For example denying that the Christ is God. The dogma behind the celebration of the Annunciation and Christ's birth is the Incarnation. If the writer of the Catholic Encyclopaedia article had denied the Incarnation then he/she would be excommunicated. I'm sure i have explained to you that celebrating Christmas on 25 December is not a Catholic dogma. After all calendars are not infallible. In fact some Catholic Churches of the east (Byzantine) celebrate Christmas on a different date than us Latins because they use a different calendar in their liturgy.

We are talking of Mithra's birthday here. Your brother have not presented any reason the festival wasnt on dec 25.

Your reference book, your encyclopedia said the birthday of Mithra holds on 25th december. If that statement is wrong, go and remove your name from that encyclopedia or better still denounce it. In as much as you ve not disassociated yourself from that book. It is still a valid reference material of what you believe whether dogma or non-dogma.

You can say that what you say here on nairaland does not present a catholic view, but your religion's encyclopedia is what an outsider can read and know about you. It cant be written anyhow.

dolphinheart:


Before I answer you, please are you saying ur Easter date does not align or fall in line with Nissan 14?

exactly!

Easter hardly falls on 14th of Nissan.

That is another effect of the council of Nicea. I told you earlier that before nicean different arms of the catholic church had different dates for easter.

It was in nicean that it was agreed that easter should be celebrated on any sunday which fell around 14th of Nisan, sometimes easter and 14th nisan are many days apart.

Easter hardly falls on 14th Nisan, if you think am lying go make the research, the day of Christs resurrection and the day easter is celebrated are usually days apart.

JMAN05:


Provide where he said he was quoting Usener.

I quoted Catholic encyclopedia, not an encyclopedia of another Church. And the person who wrote it is a valid member of your church. his work is a reference material about your church. Provide your church so called official book that said Mithra's birthday is done another day.

If you think an encyclopedia of a church is written any how, please go and write your own and call it "Roman catholic encyclopedia", and write any rubbish you wish inside. I give you just one week, Catholic scholars will storm your house and give you a dirty slap legally. Even your local Father will immediately tell you to go and tire that rubbish or face the music. Do you think you just wake up and write encyclopedia of a church? Are you not an adult? habah! argument. Pls end this puerile point abeg.

you are accusing me of puerile points? Are you aware you are the inventor of puerile points?

The New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, says:
According to the hypothesis . . . accepted by most scholars today, the birth of Christ was
assigned the date of the winter solstice (December 25 in the Julian calendar, January 6 in the Egyptian), because on this day, as
the sun began its return to northern skies, the pagan devotees of Mithra celebrated the
dies natalis Solis Invicti (birthday of the Invincible Sun). On Dec. 25, 274, Aurelian had proclaimed the sun-god principal patron of the empire and dedicated a temple to him in the Campus Martius. Christmas originated at a time when the cult of the sun was particularly strong at Rome.



Can you see what was written? It never said it was a proven fact, or an irrefutable conclusion!

The Catholic encyclopedia said it is the HYPOTHESIS accepted by many scholars who lived in 1967. The encyclopedia never said "this is what d church believes" or this is the fact, it says it is a hypothesis accepted by scholars who lived in 1967.

Can you read English? You are the person treating an hypothesis as though it was fact! The catholic encyclopedia never said it was fact or the conclusive truth, it said it is the popular hypothesis.

That hypothesis has now been refuted by scholars.

JMAN05:


We are talking of Mithra's birthday here. Your brother have not presented any reason the festival wasnt on dec 25.

Your reference book, your encyclopedia said the birthday of Mithra holds on 25th december. If that statement is wrong, go and remove your name from that encyclopedia or better still denounce it. In as much as you ve not disassociated yourself from that book. It is still a valid reference material of what you believe whether dogma or non-dogma.

You can say that what you say here on nairaland does not present a catholic view, but your religion's encyclopedia is what an outsider can read and know about you. It cant be written anyhow.

sorry the catholic encyclopedia didnt present any such fact!

Instead the catholic encyclopedia say that a popular hypothesis is that 25 of december is the celebration of sol invinti and that adherent of mithra celebrated this feast.

The hypothesis has now been refuted because the celebration of Christmas predates the celebration of sol invinctus.

Ubenedictus:



sorry the catholic encyclopedia didnt present any such fact!

Instead the catholic encyclopedia say that a popular hypothesis is that 25 of december is the celebration of sol invinti and that adherent of mithra celebrated this feast.

The hypothesis has now been refuted because the celebration of Christmas predates the celebration of sol invinctus.

Another gaucherie!

Under Mithraism:

Sunday was
kept holy in honour of Mithra, and the
sixteenth of each month was sacred to
him as mediator. [size=15]The 25 December was
observed as his birthday[/size], the natalis
invicti, the rebirth of the winter-sun,
unconquered by the rigours of the
season.

Ubenedictus:


you are accusing me of puerile points? Are you aware you are the inventor of puerile points?

The New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, says:
According to the hypothesis . . . accepted by most scholars today, the birth of Christ was
assigned the date of the winter solstice (December 25 in the Julian calendar, January 6 in the Egyptian), because on this day, as
the sun began its return to northern skies, the pagan devotees of Mithra celebrated the
dies natalis Solis Invicti (birthday of the Invincible Sun). On Dec. 25, 274, Aurelian had proclaimed the sun-god principal patron of the empire and dedicated a temple to him in the Campus Martius. Christmas originated at a time when the cult of the sun was particularly strong at Rome.



Can you see what was written? It never said it was a proven fact, or an irrefutable conclusion!

The Catholic encyclopedia said it is the HYPOTHESIS accepted by many scholars who lived in 1967. The encyclopedia never said "this is what d church believes" or this is the fact, it says it is a hypothesis accepted by scholars who lived in 1967.

Can you read English? You are the person treating an hypothesis as though it was fact! The catholic encyclopedia never said it was fact or the conclusive truth, it said it is the popular hypothesis.

That hypothesis has now been refuted by scholars.

The proof I gave for Mithra's birthday is from ur online encyclopedia, not that 1967 one. Check thread 11.

Though that one was still helpful on this point, your online encyclopedia seem to present the most current info on catholic view.

It is this online info that am talking about on the comment you responded to.

But it would be better u start from where we stopped on Jan 23rd.

Pls go back there, if not, I ll stop responding to you here cos it is pointless to abandon what you need to respond to and start another phase.

The content I quoted on the online encyclopedia is in my post above.

Ubenedictus:


exactly!

Easter hardly falls on 14th of Nissan.

That is another effect of the council of Nicea. I told you earlier that before nicean different arms of the catholic church had different dates for easter.

It was in nicean that it was agreed that easter should be celebrated on any sunday which fell around 14th of Nisan, sometimes easter and 14th nisan are many days apart.

Easter hardly falls on 14th Nisan, if you think am lying go make the research, the day of Christs resurrection and the day easter is celebrated are usually days apart.

Oga, my question is, are you saying ur Easter date does not align or fall in line with Nissan 14.

I know that the Easter is not always celebrated on Nissan 14. Easter is not on Nissan 14 , even if its to be celebrated , then it should be Nissan 16/17.
The reason why I mentioned Nissan 14 was because this date was mentioned in the scriptures in relation to the date jesus died and you celebrate jesus resurrection which happened 2 days later.

Now Easter date is fixed in another style unlike the christmas date (this is the point I'm trying bring out). Easter date is fixed by choosing the nearest sunday in the year the day Nissan 14 falls on in the gregorian calender.(which is still wrong anyway and done for selfish reasons and pride). Easter should have been celebrated on any day Nissan 16/17 falls on.

So why is this done for the Easter, which date can be figured out with the hebrew calender, and not done with the christmass celebration that you claim also have a hebrew date.?
Why is the Christmas date fixed on the gregorian calender and the surer date Nissan 14 used to calculate Easter is not fixed on the same calender.?

JMAN05:


The proof I gave for Mithra's birthday is from ur online encyclopedia, not that 1967 one. Check thread 11.

Though that one was still helpful on this point, your online encyclopedia seem to present the most current info on catholic view.

It is this online info that am talking about on the comment you responded to.

But it would be better u start from where we stopped on Jan 23rd.

Pls go back there, if not, I ll stop responding to you here cos it is pointless to abandon what you need to respond to and start another phase.

The content I quoted on the online encyclopedia is in my post above.

are you aware that the online encyclopedia you quoted is from 1911?

Are you aware that d said incyclopedia has been updated by the 1967 version?

The 1911 said sol invinctus has a strong claim, the update encyclopedia says it is only a popular hypothesis. That is how you know an information that isn't certain.

dolphinheart:


Oga, my question is, are you saying ur Easter date does not align or fall in line with Nissan 14.

easter doesn't exactly fall on 14th Nisan, is fall around nisan d same way christmas falls around tebet.

I know that the Easter is not always celebrated on Nissan 14. Easter is not on Nissan 14 , even if its to be celebrated , then it should be Nissan 16/17.
The reason why I mentioned Nissan 14 was because this date was mentioned in the scriptures in relation to the date jesus died and you celebrate jesus resurrection which happened 2 days later.

Now Easter date is fixed in another style unlike the christmas date (this is the point I'm trying bring out). Easter date is fixed by choosing the nearest sunday in the year the day Nissan 14 falls on in the gregorian calender.(which is still wrong anyway and done for selfish reasons and pride). Easter should have been celebrated on any day Nissan 16/17 falls on.

and yet it hardly falls on 16/17 Nisan. And easter wasn't fixed because of selfish reason and pride, if you don't read up on early church history then i advise you research on it because making accusations of pride.

So why is this done for the Easter, which date can be figured out with the hebrew calender, and not done with the christmass celebration that you claim also have a hebrew date.?
Why is the Christmas date fixed on the gregorian calender and the surer date Nissan 14 used to calculate Easter is not fixed on the same calender.?

because the catholic church decided to fix the date that way. The council of nicean decided to fixed easter around Nicean and each individual church fixed christmas around tebet.

Ubenedictus:
easter doesn't exactly fall on 14th Nisan, is fall around nisan d same way christmas falls around tebet.

and yet it hardly falls on 16/17 Nisan. And easter wasn't fixed because of selfish reason and pride, if you don't read up on early church history then i advise you research on it because making accusations of pride.

because the catholic church decided to fix the date that way. The council of nicean decided to fixed easter around Nicean and each individual church fixed christmas around tebet.

Oga oga!,
1) why do the church use different processes to arrive at the date they use in celebrating their festivals ?.

The date for christmass is fixed on the Gregorian calender, while the date for Easter is not fixed on the gregorian calender , why is this so, when both dates are fixed on the hebrew calender?

2) can a date fixed on the hebrew calender be fixed on the gregorian calender?

3) why is Easter not usually done on the date it urccurs on the hebrew calender if not for pride and the determination to validate the day more than the date.? (at least if not for the Jews and the bible, we would not have known the date of jesus resurrection )

Ubenedictus:
are you aware that the online encyclopedia you quoted is from 1911?

Are you aware that d said incyclopedia has been updated by the 1967 version?

The 1911 said sol invinctus has a strong claim, the update encyclopedia says it is only a popular hypothesis. That is how you know an information that isn't certain.

The preface says:

"The work is [size=14]entirely new[/size], and not merely a translation or a
compilation from other encyclopedia sources."

Oga pls go back to where we stopped and start from there. This is the last time am telling you this.

If you ignore where we stopped next time, I will ignore you.