Why I Think Christmas is Not Biblical (Please read OP before posting).

[Bible Highlighter]

And your point is...? One side of my family is Catholic.

So you are in full acceptance of praying to Mary and the saints, etc.?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Jason0047 said: ↑
You may like to think our English language has no meaning, but it actually does have meaning. What of Satan, I mean Santa?

'Santa' is not English. And it is a real name. Please be careful. Imagine how you would feel if you heard someone saying that your name really meant Satan! I know someone who is called Santa and she would be terribly upset if she knew someone was linking it to the name of Satan. It is Italian and actually means 'holy, set apart'.

There was a Mexican general who had "Santa" in his name..........

Santa Anna at the Alamo

 

[Bible Highlighter]

'Santa' is not English. And it is a real name. Please be careful. Imagine how you would feel if you heard someone saying that your name really meant Satan! I know someone who is called Santa and she would be terribly upset if she knew someone was linking it to the name of Satan. It is Italian and actually means 'holy, set apart'.

All words are tied together. There are no coincidences.
I don't believe this was a real person.

 

[Kerensa]

All words are tied together. There are no coincidences.

Between totally different languages, there are. But it's clear we're not talking logic here.

So you are in full acceptance of praying to Mary and the saints, etc.?

No, I'm not. I'm not Catholic myself. But I respect those who are, even if I don't agree with all aspects of their theology. I'd rather see them as a brother or sister in Christ first and foremost.

Your own version of Christianity does seem to be mainly focussed on condemning people who don't believe exactly the same things you do, have you noticed?

 

[AnnaDeborah]

All words are tied together. There are no coincidences.
I don't believe this was a real person.

You don't believe I know someone called Santa because that would affect your claim that Santa and Satan mean the same?!

So who are you accusing? Me of lying? Or her of giving me a false name (which would be really weird since it would also involve her giving a false name to loads of other people!)

 

[Kaon]

Did you see Jonathan Cahn's explanation on the date of Christ's birth?

Really great stuff here.
Well, I do not agree with his view on the Magi, but everything he says about the date is spot on. He uses the Bible and he gets it spot on.

I haven't seen this video, but I do think the God-given holy days we were given point to the entire story of creation - so it would make sense He was born on Nisan 1, and then comes back in Tishri 15-21 (the wedding.) We are given warning of His coming (Trumpets), and then we atone on the 10th day - parallel to Nisan 10 when we keep the lamb. Then, Tishri 15-21 is the Wedding, which parallels Nisan 15-21 (unleavened bread).

I may be interested in watching more about Jonathan Cahn. Thanks.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

There was a Mexican general who had "Santa" in his name..........

Santa Anna at the Alamo

This is getting silly. I don't actually believe people are defending Santa Claus now.

Okay.

His full name is Santa Claus.

It’s no secret Lucas and Lucis are new-age "code words" for Lucifer. The Alice Bailey founded new age, occult publishing company was originally named Lucifer Publishing Company but in 1924 the name was cleverly changed to Lucis Trust. By the way, the Lucifer worshipping Lucis Trust is a major player in the works of the United Nations, formerly located in the United Nations building but now located on prime-time 1200 Wall Street.

Claus sounds a lot like "claws."

Maybe Santa Claus means "Satan's Claws"? Like a lion's "claws"?

Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: (1 Peter 5:8).

Jolly Old St. Nick

While Santa and Claus may be disguising their real meaning – there is no disguising St. Nick. He is a well-known character.

Old Nick: A well-known British name of the Devil. It seems probable that this name is derived from the Dutch Nikken, the devil...
(Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology, p.650)
Nick, the devil.
(Walter W. Sleay, Concise Dictionary of English Etymology, p. 304)

Devil: Besides the name Satan, he is also called Beelzebub, Lucifer . . . and in popular or rustic speech by many familiar terms as Old Nick . . .
(Oxford English Dictionary Vol III D-E)

Actor Adam Sandler and New Line Studios are obviously aware Nick is an alias for Satan. Their movie Little Nicky is about the son of Satan named Little Nicky. A teaser for the film says, "If your mother was an angel and your father was the devil you'd be messed up too."

Source used:
SANTA CLAUS: The Great Imposter
(Note: I agree with this article, that does not mean I may agree with other things that they may teach).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I haven't seen this video, but I do think the God-given holy days we were given point to the entire story of creation - so it would make sense He was born on Nisan 1, and then comes back in Tishri 15-21 (the wedding.) We are given warning of His coming (Trumpets), and then we atone on the 10th day - parallel to Nisan 10 when we keep the lamb. Then, Tishri 15-21 is the Wedding, which parallels Nisan 15-21 (unleavened bread).

I may be interested in watching more about Jonathan Cahn. Thanks.

You are most welcome.

May God bless you greatly today.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Between totally different languages, there are. But it's clear we're not talking logic here.



No, I'm not. I'm not Catholic myself. But I respect those who are, even if I don't agree with all aspects of their theology. I'd rather see them as a brother or sister in Christ first and foremost.

Your own version of Christianity does seem to be mainly focussed on condemning people who don't believe exactly the same things you do, have you noticed?

I just believe the Bible alone. I am just trying to help you to see what it says.

 

[AnnaDeborah]

This is getting silly. I don't actually believe people are defending Santa Claus now.

I am not defending Santa Claus. I am asking you to stop saying that Santa means Satan, because Santa is a real girl's name. You replied with a comment that implied either I was lying or that Santa is lying about her name. And then went on to say that Lucas means Lucifer.

Santa means 'holy'. Lucas is a variation of Luke. So you are taking a name which means 'set apart to God' and a name of one of Jesus' disciples and trying to turn them into words that refer to the devil. Can't you see how wrong this is?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I just believe the Bible alone. I am just trying to help you to see what it says.

I am also Solo Scripura and why I am close to becoming a full preterist

LUKE 21 MATTHEW 24 OLIVET DISCOURSE CONTROVERSY [Poll Thread]

 

[Blade]

Thank you.. but Christmas is not about you. And ALL of our brothers and sisters are HIS Children. Its to HIM we all answer. No one answers to me. My right standing with my Father (righteousness) is ONLY because of Christ not how I live this life or if I EVER obey Him. All if this is personally how you feel. Again.. someone read the word.. seen what some to today and then try to apply how they see read the word and say ..maybe YOU should see this as I DO...

So its how you SEE it. For me.. those that wish to worship celebrate when this GOD left heaven came to earth and take MANS place so the Father could get back His creation. Some of us.. celebrate this day in day out. It means that much to us. And some REALLY worship cry out to Him on Xmas.

I also love to look at like.. Christ came what over 2k years ago. Yet one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like one day. So.. they could STILL be celebrating how GOD came to earth... since it IS has been just over 2 days ago to the Father. Theres NO TIME THERE....were NOT talking past... only as MAN sees it.. the Father does not see this like we do. ask Him.. in 56 years in my chatting with Him.. not ONCE has He said a word about this. HE gives on these times.. anyway.. praise GOD on how you wish to live and praise worship the Father.. thats between you and Him

The word..NT does not talk about BIRTHDAYS and SO many other things we do. Some look at what some group did on some day.. apply that to today and use that past as a reason to effect what they do now. My Father made the days.. I lol sorry.. just thinking.. I have NEVER looked at Christmas as Christ STILL a baby.. I look at as.. my GOD came to earth took my place. SOME are missing what happen and CHOOSE to focus on things that matter not. I am thinking about HIM during this time.. where I should be thinking rejocing EVERY DAY not just one day of the year..

So.. let HIS not yours.. HIS Children do what they want..and REJOICE that their FATHER if they are wrong HE will teach them show them.. He as the word says...does not NEED us.. chooses to use us.. PRAISE GOD GLORY TO JESUS!

Side note.. its hard for some NOT to rejoice during this time.. my moms Birthday is Dec 27 lol

 

[Der Alte]

begin

<K>That isn't my argument - that the day was chosen because of Deis Natalis Solis Invicti. However, I did say it would make sense for the Roman Government to consolidate all alleged fall/winter festivals and holidays in the nation, and have one day that the people can share in common for the purposes of uniting them. That is just common political sense, but doesn't really say anything about the intent of the Church, for example, to choose the day which they chose. The fact remains that this day was a day celebrated by sun worshipers for thousands of years, and there is nothing in the bible canon (or apocrypha, or even gnostics) that list the birthdate of the Redeemer. So the coincidence is curious (considering we were never told to worship/celebrate/observe the birthdate of the Redeemer), [Irrelevant! DA] because the date chosen just so happens to coincide with the birthdate of a sun god.
Even the Hebrews have a history of getting involved with strange religions that, among other types of gods, worship the sun. This is not new, which is why I am not arguing intent; I am arguing the issue of the pagan History of Christmas in general.<end>

end

What you think might make sense for the Roman government, does NOT prove anything! Here is an alternate explanation which is just as compelling if not more so that the alleged pagan connection.

Over the centuries, Christian theologians and historians have had more than one theory about the origins of Christmas according to Fr. Richard Rutherford, C.S.C., professor emeritus of theology at the University of Portland. Rutherford says that, though there is “no hard data,” as early as during the second century, CE, there are references to celebrating the birth of Jesus. Rutherford explains that after Christians were allowed to practice their religion openly in the fourth century, celebrating Christ’s birth on December 25 became “well established.”
.....Why 25 December? Rutherford states that the most popular answer is no longer accepted as the most accurate; that December 25 was chosen because Christians were deliberately “Christianizing a pagan feast.” The birth of the unconquered light, the “sol invictus” was a Roman festival celebrated at the beginning of the new solstice on December 21, which on the Julian calendar in use at that time was our December 25. For centuries, historians viewed this pre-existing pagan celebration as the reason this date was selected.
.....According to Rutherford, in the last 50 plus years, liturgical historians found a different path to December 25 emerging in early Church writings. These reveal that the the Church celebrated the conception of Jesus on March 25, the same day believed to mark God’s creation of the world. In time this date came to commemorate the feast of the Annunciation, when Christians believe an angel told the Virgin Mary she would conceive a child by the Holy Spirit who would be the Son of God. Rutherford explains that, if Jesus was conceived on March 25, the Christ child would be born nine months later, on December 25.
.....The celebration of Easter, that is, the crucifixion and the resurrection of Christ, is a much older feast day that also influenced the belief that Christ was conceived on March 25, Rutherford says. The early Church believed Christ was crucified in March. According to Rutherford, in the ancient Church, it was believed that Jesus died on the same day in the same in month that he was conceived. In fact, Rutherford states, “a rare early image depicts the Christ child arriving at Christmas riding on a cross.” To early Christians, the dates of the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus were all intertwined.
.....As an explanation of why the celebration of Christmas seems to have taken on more significance than the celebration of Easter, Rutherford speculates, “if you consider the Mystery of the incarnation, if that hadn’t happened, there would be no cross, and no resurrection, so that’s the focal point.”
Why is Christmas celebrated on Dec. 25 and how and where did many common Christmas traditions begin? | University of Portland​

 

[Not David]

Christians are not infallible to error.
They also may be limited in knowledge to what Christmas is about elsewhere.
They probably have no clue about the kinds of things that we are discussing here.

"Christians are not infallible of error"
And how do we know your interpretation is the correct one?

 

[Not David]

Yes, it is about Christmas because people who go to Black Friday are doing so as a part of Christmas. This is the true Christmas spirit that folks do not want to see.

No, this is the "Christmas" that you see. Others have told you that they don't do that kind of stuff but you keep seeing what the world do instead of what the Church does.

 

[Not David]

<K>That isn't my argument - that the day was chosen because of Deis Natalis Solis Invicti. However, I did say it would make sense for the Roman Government to consolidate all alleged fall/winter festivals and holidays in the nation, and have one day that the people can share in common for the purposes of uniting them. That is just common political sense, but doesn't really say anything about the intent of the Church, for example, to choose the day which they chose. The fact remains that this day was a day celebrated by sun worshipers for thousands of years, and there is nothing in the bible canon (or apocrypha, or even gnostics) that list the birthdate of the Redeemer. So the coincidence is curious (considering we were never told to worship/celebrate/observe the birthdate of the Redeemer), [Irrelevant! DA] because the date chosen just so happens to coincide with the birthdate of a sun god.
Even the Hebrews have a history of getting involved with strange religions that, among other types of gods, worship the sun. This is not new, which is why I am not arguing intent; I am arguing the issue of the pagan History of Christmas in general.<end>
What you think might make sense for the Roman government, does NOT prove anything! Here is an alternate explanation which is just as compelling if not more so that the alleged pagan connection.

Over the centuries, Christian theologians and historians have had more than one theory about the origins of Christmas according to Fr. Richard Rutherford, C.S.C., professor emeritus of theology at the University of Portland. Rutherford says that, though there is “no hard data,” as early as during the second century, CE, there are references to celebrating the birth of Jesus. Rutherford explains that after Christians were allowed to practice their religion openly in the fourth century, celebrating Christ’s birth on December 25 became “well established.”
.....Why 25 December? Rutherford states that the most popular answer is no longer accepted as the most accurate; that December 25 was chosen because Christians were deliberately “Christianizing a pagan feast.” The birth of the unconquered light, the “sol invictus” was a Roman festival celebrated at the beginning of the new solstice on December 21, which on the Julian calendar in use at that time was our December 25. For centuries, historians viewed this pre-existing pagan celebration as the reason this date was selected.
.....According to Rutherford, in the last 50 plus years, liturgical historians found a different path to December 25 emerging in early Church writings. These reveal that the the Church celebrated the conception of Jesus on March 25, the same day believed to mark God’s creation of the world. In time this date came to commemorate the feast of the Annunciation, when Christians believe an angel told the Virgin Mary she would conceive a child by the Holy Spirit who would be the Son of God. Rutherford explains that, if Jesus was conceived on March 25, the Christ child would be born nine months later, on December 25.
.....The celebration of Easter, that is, the crucifixion and the resurrection of Christ, is a much older feast day that also influenced the belief that Christ was conceived on March 25, Rutherford says. The early Church believed Christ was crucified in March. According to Rutherford, in the ancient Church, it was believed that Jesus died on the same day in the same in month that he was conceived. In fact, Rutherford states, “a rare early image depicts the Christ child arriving at Christmas riding on a cross.” To early Christians, the dates of the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus were all intertwined.
.....As an explanation of why the celebration of Christmas seems to have taken on more significance than the celebration of Easter, Rutherford speculates, “if you consider the Mystery of the incarnation, if that hadn’t happened, there would be no cross, and no resurrection, so that’s the focal point.”
Why is Christmas celebrated on Dec. 25 and how and where did many common Christmas traditions begin? | University of Portland​

The first reference of Christmas being celebrated on December 25th is by Hyppolytus of Rome, who explains in his Commentary on the book of Daniel (c. A.D. 204):
For the first advent of our Lord in the flesh, when he was born in Bethlehem, was December 25th, Wednesday, while Augustus was in his forty-second year, but from Adam, five thousand and five hundred years. He suffered in the thirty-third year, March 25th, Friday, the eighteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, while Rufus and Roubellion were Consuls

 

[Godcrazy]

You say exactly what God has shown me

 

[Mal'ak]

This is what you claimed the pope's letter to Augustine said.
<Mal>Christmas is not Biblical, a little history lesson:
When the Catholic church of Rome was converting the Anglo-Saxons of England in 597AD, they sent a Saint Augustine. A letter from the Pope instructed him to use pagan rituals and holy days and convert them to Christian, to make the transition to Christianity easier. One such holy day was yule, which was the Anglo-Saxon pagan festival of the new year.
"Celebration of the Norse New Year; a festival of 12 nights. This is the most important of all the Norse holidays. On the night of December 20, the god Ingvi Freyr rides over the earth on the back of his shining boar, bringing Light and Love back into the World. In later years, after the influence of Christianity, the god Baldur, then Jesus, was reborn at this festival. Jul signifies the beginning and end of all things; the darkest time (shortest hour of daylight) during the year and the brightest hope re-entering the world. During this festival, the Wild Hunt is at its greatest fervor, and the dead are said to range the Earth in its retinue. The god Wotan (Odin) is the leader of this Wild Ride; charging across the sky on his eight-legged horse, Sleipnir; a very awe-inspiring vision. In ancient times, Germanic and Norse children would leave their boots out by the hearth on Solstice Eve, filled with hay and sugar, for Sleipnir's journey. In return, Wotan would leave them a gift for their kindness. In modern times, Sleipnir was changed to a reindeer and the grey-bearded Wotan became the kindly Santa Claus (Father Christmas)."<end>
Here is a copy of the actual letter nothing highlighted in red in the previous letter appears in the actual letter.
<MLK>A COPY OF THE LETTER WHICH POPE GREGORY SENT TO THE ABBOT MELLITUS, THEN GOING INTO BRITAIN. [A.D. 601.]
"To his most beloved son, the Abbot Mellitus; Gregory, the servant of the servants of God. We have been much concerned, since the departure of our congregation that is with you, because we have received no account of the success of your journey. When, therefore, Almighty God shall bring you to the most reverend Bishop Augustine, our brother, tell him what I have, upon mature deliberation on the affair of the English, determined upon, viz., that the temples of the idols in that nation ought not to be destroyed; but let the idols that are in them be destroyed; let holy water be made and sprinkled in the said temples, let altars be erected, and relics placed. For if those temples are well built, it is requisite that they be converted from the worship of devils to the service of the true God; that the nation, seeing that their temples are not destroyed, may remove error from their hearts, and knowing and adoring the true God, may the more familiarly resort to the places to which they have been accustomed. And because they have been used to slaughter many oxen in the sacrifices to devils, some solemnity must be exchanged for them on this account, as that on the day of the dedication, or the nativities of the holy martyrs, whose relics are there deposited, they may build themselves huts of the boughs of trees, about those churches which have been turned to that use from temples, and celebrate the solemnity with religious feasting, and no more offer beasts to the Devil, but kill cattle to the praise of God in their eating, and return thanks to the Giver of all things for their sustenance; to the end that, whilst some gratifications are outwardly permitted them, they may the more easily consent to the inward consolations of the grace of God. For there is no doubt that it is impossible to efface everything at once from their obdurate minds; because he who endeavours to ascend to the highest place, rises by degrees or steps, and not by leaps. Thus the Lord made Himself known to the people of Israel in Egypt; and yet He allowed them the use of the sacrifices which they were wont to offer to the Devil, in his own worship; so as to command them in his sacrifice to kill beasts, to the end that, changing their hearts, they might lay aside one part of the sacrifice, whilst they retained another; that whilst they offered the same beasts which they were wont to offer, they should offer them to God, and not to idols; and thus they would no longer be the same sacrifices. This it behooves your affection to communicate to our aforesaid brother, that he, being there present, may consider how he is to order all things. God preserve you in safety, most beloved son. Given the 17th of June, in the nineteenth year of the reign of our lord, the most pious emperor, Mauritius Tiberius, the eighteenth year after the consulship of our said lord. The fourth indiction."<end>
Apparently the most questionable thing that the pope said in the letter was let the Anglo-Saxons retain the pagan temples but destroy the idols.

The letter is now long lost, but it was preserved in the writings of Bede, one of the founding English Historians. Bede was Catholic from the dark ages, I doubt he would lie about the words of the Pope, because back then those kinds of acts were believed to send you directly to Hell. I understand you want to argue, just to argue since I doubt you did any research about the letter, that is completely fine but for others so they are not deceived. The letter from the Pope tells us this:

1. "the temples of the idols in that nation ought not to be destroyed", so we know he does not want any of the holy landmarks of the pagan's destroyed and turned instead to Christian sites of worship.

2. "that the nation, seeing that their temples are not destroyed, may remove error from their hearts, and knowing and adoring the true God, may the more familiarly resort to the places to which they have been accustomed." He wanted the transition to Christian to be easier, and the people would be offended if the Catholic missionaries showed up and just started to destroy all their holy sites.

3. "about those churches which have been turned to that use from temples, and celebrate the solemnity with religious feasting, and no more offer beasts to the Devil, but kill cattle to the praise of God in their eating, and return thanks to the Giver of all things for their sustenance;" Here the Pope tells him for them to CONTINUE "religious feasting" and "kill cattle", but now instead of to devil that the festivals and animal sacrifice was done in God's name.

4. "For there is no doubt that it is impossible to efface everything at once from their obdurate minds; because he who endeavours to ascend to the highest place, rises by degrees or steps, and not by leaps." The Pope justifies the allowing of pagan festivals and animal sacrifice as long as it is done in God's name, because it would be "impossible to efface everything at once" but the missionaries in England had to "rise by degrees or steps, and not by leaps".

I am not insulting Catholics, I was raised Catholic and I think of all the religions they have more of a heart for God since more Christian religions are quicker to say if you disagree with them you are possessed by the Devil. Granted the Catholics did the same damnation in middle ages, but they learned it only hurt the Church, while all other Christian religions are too new to grasp the consequences of their actions. But facts of the origins of Christmas and other Holidays has nothing to do with Bible or God's law, it is human history. Either you know the history or not, the only holy day in the new Covenant is Passover.

 

[Kaon]

<K>That isn't my argument - that the day was chosen because of Deis Natalis Solis Invicti. However, I did say it would make sense for the Roman Government to consolidate all alleged fall/winter festivals and holidays in the nation, and have one day that the people can share in common for the purposes of uniting them. That is just common political sense, but doesn't really say anything about the intent of the Church, for example, to choose the day which they chose. The fact remains that this day was a day celebrated by sun worshipers for thousands of years, and there is nothing in the bible canon (or apocrypha, or even gnostics) that list the birthdate of the Redeemer. So the coincidence is curious (considering we were never told to worship/celebrate/observe the birthdate of the Redeemer), [Irrelevant! DA] because the date chosen just so happens to coincide with the birthdate of a sun god.
Even the Hebrews have a history of getting involved with strange religions that, among other types of gods, worship the sun. This is not new, which is why I am not arguing intent; I am arguing the issue of the pagan History of Christmas in general.<end>
What you think might make sense for the Roman government, does NOT prove anything! Here is an alternate explanation which is just as compelling if not more so that the alleged pagan connection.

Over the centuries, Christian theologians and historians have had more than one theory about the origins of Christmas according to Fr. Richard Rutherford, C.S.C., professor emeritus of theology at the University of Portland. Rutherford says that, though there is “no hard data,” as early as during the second century, CE, there are references to celebrating the birth of Jesus. Rutherford explains that after Christians were allowed to practice their religion openly in the fourth century, celebrating Christ’s birth on December 25 became “well established.”
.....Why 25 December? Rutherford states that the most popular answer is no longer accepted as the most accurate; that December 25 was chosen because Christians were deliberately “Christianizing a pagan feast.” The birth of the unconquered light, the “sol invictus” was a Roman festival celebrated at the beginning of the new solstice on December 21, which on the Julian calendar in use at that time was our December 25. For centuries, historians viewed this pre-existing pagan celebration as the reason this date was selected.
.....According to Rutherford, in the last 50 plus years, liturgical historians found a different path to December 25 emerging in early Church writings. These reveal that the the Church celebrated the conception of Jesus on March 25, the same day believed to mark God’s creation of the world. In time this date came to commemorate the feast of the Annunciation, when Christians believe an angel told the Virgin Mary she would conceive a child by the Holy Spirit who would be the Son of God. Rutherford explains that, if Jesus was conceived on March 25, the Christ child would be born nine months later, on December 25.
.....The celebration of Easter, that is, the crucifixion and the resurrection of Christ, is a much older feast day that also influenced the belief that Christ was conceived on March 25, Rutherford says. The early Church believed Christ was crucified in March. According to Rutherford, in the ancient Church, it was believed that Jesus died on the same day in the same in month that he was conceived. In fact, Rutherford states, “a rare early image depicts the Christ child arriving at Christmas riding on a cross.” To early Christians, the dates of the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus were all intertwined.
.....As an explanation of why the celebration of Christmas seems to have taken on more significance than the celebration of Easter, Rutherford speculates, “if you consider the Mystery of the incarnation, if that hadn’t happened, there would be no cross, and no resurrection, so that’s the focal point.”
Why is Christmas celebrated on Dec. 25 and how and where did many common Christmas traditions begin? | University of Portland​

The alternate opinion of Rutherford is noted.

 

[Not David]

The letter is now long lost, but it was preserved in the writings of Bede, one of the founding English Historians. Bede was Catholic from the dark ages, I doubt he would lie about the words of the Pope, because back then those kinds of acts were believed to send you directly to Hell. I understand you want to argue, just to argue since I doubt you did any research about the letter, that is completely fine but for others so they are not deceived. The letter from the Pope tells us this:

1. "the temples of the idols in that nation ought not to be destroyed", so we know he does not want any of the holy landmarks of the pagan's destroyed and turned instead to Christian sites of worship.

2. "that the nation, seeing that their temples are not destroyed, may remove error from their hearts, and knowing and adoring the true God, may the more familiarly resort to the places to which they have been accustomed." He wanted the transition to Christian to be easier, and the people would be offended if the Catholic missionaries showed up and just started to destroy all their holy sites.

3. "about those churches which have been turned to that use from temples, and celebrate the solemnity with religious feasting, and no more offer beasts to the Devil, but kill cattle to the praise of God in their eating, and return thanks to the Giver of all things for their sustenance;" Here the Pope tells him for them to CONTINUE "religious feasting" and "kill cattle", but now instead of to devil that the festivals and animal sacrifice was done in God's name.

4. "For there is no doubt that it is impossible to efface everything at once from their obdurate minds; because he who endeavours to ascend to the highest place, rises by degrees or steps, and not by leaps." The Pope justifies the allowing of pagan festivals and animal sacrifice as long as it is done in God's name, because it would be "impossible to efface everything at once" but the missionaries in England had to "rise by degrees or steps, and not by leaps".

I am not insulting Catholics, I was raised Catholic and I think of all the religions they have more of a heart for God since more Christian religions are quicker to say if you disagree with them you are possessed by the Devil. Granted the Catholics did the same damnation in middle ages, but they learned it only hurt the Church, while all other Christian religions are too new to grasp the consequences of their actions. But facts of the origins of Christmas and other Holidays has nothing to do with Bible or God's law, it is human history. Either you know the history or not, the only holy day in the new Covenant is Passover.

Why not just follow Paul's teaching on "The Church being the foundation and pillar of truth"? (1 Timothy 3:15)