If you want me to go through your points, shorten it. I don't feel like breaking the Quote system and I really think there's a lot of stuff you don't need there. Part of being a good debater is being able to put across concise points that people can relate to.
Christian sites, btw, don't count because they are biased compared to the sites showing otherwise, as it's very doubtful that those sites are run by Pagans, but it's pretty obvious who Christian sites are going to be run by.
It's pretty hard to find specific resources because of all the Christian "rebuttals" which are more in number than the original and all of them missing the point entirely, but there are some interesting ones;
" Alexander Hislop confirms this, adding: That Christmas was originally a Pagan festival, is beyond all doubt. The time of the year, and the ceremonies with which it is still celebrated, prove its origin. "
http://www.garnertedarmstrong.ws/christmas2.shtml
And that appears to even be coming from a Christian resources, which is interesting.
http://de.essortment.com/christmaspagan_rece.htm
http://paganwiccan.about.com/cs/aboutyu ... anxmas.htm
http://www.zenzibar.com/Articles/christmas.asp
Provide plenty of information.
Here are (apparently) both Christian and Pagan says on the matter:
http://www.ccg.org/english/s/p235.html
http://www.denofheathens.com/2004_nov.html
Sine you refuse to cut down your original post, I don't think it's too much to ask you to skim through these.
But honestly, you're looking for every opportunity for me to slip up so you can declare a nice little victory, rather than dealing with content itself, desptie the hefty amount(quantity over quality) you provided.
Quite frankly rubbish like this - "Also, Constantine's conversion happened around 313 AD--and early Christians had already taken stock in the concept of Jesus's birthday being December 25. For me, that is more than enough to sink Misty's ship.
BATTLESHIP--SUNK! " makes it even more difficult to bear. Not only do most of your Wikipedia quotes contain irrelevant evidence which doesn't really contradict anything I've said, they're pretty hard to read through when you can't turn your ego down a notch.
But most of your argument seems to be based on the fact that people decided the birth of christ around the 300s originally; err, you do realise that these pagan traditions long predate Christianity? They weren't "alongside" it. Plus, whatever reasons are down on paper do not necessarily represent intent.
You claim that Christianity took nothing from pagan celebrations and that everything else is "too similiar to be anything but coincidence", which is dirty, filthy rubbish, as I'm sure you'll see when you read the above resources.
Even the opening paragraph on Wikipedia on Christmas tends to go in my favour -
"Christmas is a holiday observed in much of the world on 25 December (or on 7 January in most Eastern Orthodox Churches). It is celebrated by most Christians to mark the birth of Jesus, although in the U.S and Europe it has slowly become more of a secular holiday. Jesus is believed to have been born around the period of 1 BC, in Bethlehem, Jerusalem in an old stable alongside his mother Mary and her husband Joseph.
Quote:
Most Christmas traditions originated with pre-Christian observances that were syncretized into Christianity.
Examples of this process are the Roman Saturnalia, the northern European Yule, and the Winter Solstice celebration found in many older as well as recent pagan celebrations. Christmas is also a significant secular holiday celebrated by many non-Christian people."
There you haven't. Not some, most, and they were indeed lifted and not just ridiculously impossible coincidences as you seem to want to believe.