What evidence is there to support that website's claim? Why should I take them seriously? What research did they do to supposedly know the motivations for the celebration of Christ's Nativity being moved from January 6th to December 25th?
Except, none of the stuff we typically associate with Christmas--very Germanic things--were ever a part of Christian celebration of Christ's Nativity in other parts of the world like Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Persia, India and Greece. The phenomenon we attach to Christmas in America are originally from Germany (Christmas trees) and the Netherlands (Santa Claus, or Sinterklaas in Dutch). And to this day, I don't even know what a Yule log is, because I've never seen one before. Heck, Santa Claus as he's known today didn't exist before around the 1800's.
Indeed, and you seem to have trouble finding them.
Watered-down message? Sounds like a lot of American Christian denominations.
The Jehovah's Witnesses in general seem to prefer to ignore the qualifies scholarship in each area.
By the way, let me also say this, Pagan does not mean bad. If the church adopted and baptized aspects of pagan worship, as part of the process of acculturation, that is good. For remember, there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither Male nor Female. Many of the ancient religions other than Judaism taught solid moral truths and were praiseworthy, for example,the Cult of the Unknown God in Greece, which was known for its members enthusiastic uptake of Chrisrianity. Another example would be Zoroastrianism, a monotheistic religion that can be interpreted as anti-Hinduism; most scholars believe that Judaism acquired the idea of a devil and numerous other influences involving the Angels and archangels from this religion. I would stop short of calling Zoroaster, or Zarathustra as he is known in the Avestan language, as a true prophet of God, but I often wonder if he and Melchizedek and Abraham were in a sense practitioners of or participants in some ancient hieratic religion originating from the descendants of Noah. Zoroastrianism gains even more legitimacy in relation to Christianity when one considers that Zoroastrian priests, or Mobeds, were in the West known as Magi; they varied widely in their morals, but we see the noble example of the Three Magi attending the Birth of Christ, and the more ignominious case of Simon Magus (and if we believe Irenaeus that he was the founder of Gnosticism, his status as a stray Magus, probably suspended by his high priest and working as a freelance magician as it were, would explain the Zoroastrian-like rituals in Mandaeism, the last surviving Gnostic religion, which worships John the Baptist and practices weekly baptism).
Now it is true that the Gods of the Gentiles are demons (Psalm 95 v 5 LXX). However Zoroastrianism as a monotheistic or dualistic religion that appears to be the source of much of what is in the Old Testament, and which regards the Daevas, or divine beings, of Hinduism (whose Vedic rites are conducted around a sacred fire like the Zoroastrian Avesta), as Devils. Notice also the etymological link between Daevas and devil, and the worst aspects one could think of in a religion being present in some Hindu sects; the cruelty of some Brahmin priests, like one who a few months ago bashed in the head of a Dalit or untouchable boy who wandered into his temple looking for candy (which is distributed to non-Dalits therein), or the Aghoris who live in cremation grounds and engage in vile and debased practices.
So it is easy to speculate of an ancient hieratic religion that is the origin of Judaism and which in earlier centuries encompassed Zoroastrianism and the religion of Melchizedek, which found its fulfillment in Jesus Christ. This makes sense in light of the archaeological evidence which disfavors a strictly literal interpretation of the Old Testament; the Old Testament works as a typological, allegorical and in some cases quasi-historical prophecy of the coming incarnation of the Word, of God taking flesh to redeem and sanctify his creation.
It should also be stressed that the incarnation as understood in Orthodox, Catholic and mainline Protestant Christianity is a unique religious concept. The idea that God would become man in order to show us what it means to be human, and provide for our deification, and our fulfillment as persons, not the dissolving of our personal hood into an impersonal deity like Brahmin, is unique among the world religions. And it's a very hard pill to swallow. All the early heresies involved attempts to deny it. Docetism "Well, God didn't really become human." Arianism "Well it wasn't really God". One should also say that Arianism emerged more than 300 years after the death of John and was immediately condemned as an innovation. The Arians, whose doctrine the Jehovah's Witnesses most closely follow, used their influence at court to violently subjugate the Orthodox who believe in the divinity of Christ for most of the fourth century.
I also must confess I find the appellation "Bible Student" to be disagreeable. At what accredited university or seminary are you scholars of the Bible? Why is it that you show so little familiarity with the major works of academic scholarship since, well, the time of Christ? And why do you insist on disputing so violently with those who disagree with you? And why does your religion exercise such close and overbearing control on its members, including the shunning of apostates?
