Yes, in part 4, I commented on the overall view. Like how it's all one big mess. It's Roman pagan, then is Nordic pagan... it's all over the place and it's all based on assumptions. primary or secondary sources are never mentioned. Just "pop culture" assumptions.
(I'm writing right now, writing comes from babylon, bam! Case closed. It's a bit of a silly example, but I guess it makes it clear, of what the standart seems to be.)
For example the tree. It's true that that one is the most "nuanced argument" but again, Christmas started in the mediterranean, while the tree itself, is more prevalent in northern regions. In Yul they would burn a piece of wood... Some say Luther started it. Some say with was a priest, that cut down a tree, some northern Europeans used to worship, when trying to convert them. After realising with was just a tree, they then decorated it. Some say it started with the priest and later it was adapted by most.
Point being: Luther, Priest or even Yul, the tree was introduced centuries (if not 1500 years) after the celebration of Christmas started.
Other things have been introduced with the years as well. Like sending cards. Not from the original 2000 years ago, and not really a "pagan practise blend" either.
After, looking into it this year, I'm of the opinion that there is no pagan influence on Christmas. Despite having said there was, for many years.
Thank you for your great comment. And the sharing.
Happy new year!!!
RE: Is Christmas a pagan celebration? (Part 2)