Is St Valentines Day Christian? The Dark Origin

[Bible Speaks]

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/14/133693152/the-dark-origins-of-valentines-day

[Ann O'Maly]

"There is no evidence of any link between St. Valentine's Day and the rites of the ancient Roman festival [Lupercalia], despite many claims by many authors.^{[18][42][notes 1]} The celebration of Saint Valentine did not have any romantic connotations until Chaucer's poetry about "Valentines" in the 14th century.^[24]" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentine's_Day#Connection_with_romantic_love

[Bible Speaks]

1 hour ago, Ann O'Maly said:

"There is no evidence of any link between St. Valentine's Day and the rites of the ancient Roman festival [Lupercalia], despite many claims by many authors.^{[18][42][notes 1]} The celebration of Saint Valentine did not have any romantic connotations until Chaucer's poetry about "Valentines" in the 14th century.^[24]" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentine's_Day#Connection_with_romantic_love

Ann; My research on Nimrod and how he in fact had one is his name, Lupercus, Cupid, St Valentine, as you see from chart most of these pagan holidays in fact go back to ancient Babylon and Nimrod. The book; The Two Babylons is also very interesting on history of false teachings. Of course so many things go way back and we today can learn much. Sadly, many people have no idea on these or worship of the true God Jehovah.

Agape, Bible Speaks 

[Ann O'Maly]

3 hours ago, Bible Speaks said:

Ann; My research on Nimrod and how he in fact had one is his name, Lupercus, Cupid, St Valentine, as you see from chart most of these pagan holidays in fact go back to ancient Babylon and Nimrod. The book; The Two Babylons is also very interesting on history of false teachings.

Sorry to break it to you, but the Two Babylons book has been discredited as pseudo-history. Not even the Org quotes from it any more. 

A detailed and scathing review of Two Babylons was written in an old British journal: The Saturday Review, Sept. 17, 1859 (link to full review):

"We should not have thought it worth while to notice Mr. Hislop's lucubrations if his book had not reached a second edition, and thus revealed the melancholy intellectual condition of a portion at least of the British public. For the sake of this class of readers, it may perhaps not be amiss to state gravely why we dissent from his line of argument.

"In the first place, his whole superstructure is raised upon nothing. Our earliest authority for the history of Semiramis wrote about the commencement of the Christian era, and the historian from whom he drew his information lived from fifteen hundred to two thousand years after the date which Mr. Hislop assigns to the great Assyrian Queen. The most lying legend which the Vatican has ever endorsed stands on better authority than the history which is now made the ground of a charge against it. 

"Secondly, the whole argument proceeds upon the assumption that all heathenism has a common origin. Accidental resemblances in mythological details are taken as evidence of this, and nothing is allowed for the natural working of the human mind.

"Thirdly, Mr. Hislop's reasoning would make anything of anything. By the aid of obscure passages in third-rate historians, groundless assumptions of identity, and etymological torturing of roots, all that we know, and all that we believe, may be converted, as if by the touch of Harlequin's wand, into something totally different. 

"Fourthly, Mr. Hislop's argument proves too much. He finds not only the corruptions of Popery, but the fundamental articles of the Christian Faith, in his hypothetical Babylonian system. ... 

"... But it is idle to speak seriously of a book which only claims attention by its matchless absurdity, and by the fact that it apparently finds readers. We take leave of Mr. Hislop and his work with the remark that we never before quite knew the folly of which ignorant or half-learned bigotry is capable." 

- p. 340 [paragraphs added for ease of reading]

It's remarkable that 2 centuries later, Hislop's misinformation still suckers people in. 

Also worth a peep - the story of one man who fell for it hook, line and sinker, and wrote a bestseller based on it, but was then told he'd been had:  http://www.apologeticsindex.org/2808-a-profile-in-integrity-ralph-woodrow

 

[Queen Esther]

@Ann O'Maly  Please, be  more  careful  with  your  comments  on  some  pages....

Our  *Bible Speaks*  sister  is  grown  in  the  Truth  and  seeing  some  themes  very  exactly !  She  appreciate  your  comments....  but,  NO  discuss  here,  okay ?  Thank  you !!

PS.  Are  you  really  a  current  JW  sister  of  us ??

I  remember,  true  sisters  never  would  write  such  a  comment....

[Queen Esther]

Thank you Maron ??

[Ann O'Maly]

Queen Esther, I don't understand. Are not threads posted on a discussion forum meant to be discussed or commented on? Is there a forum rule I've overlooked somewhere? I was alerting Bible Speaks to the problem of relying on faulty sources. We always want to "trace all things with accuracy" like Luke did, do we not?

I'm not one for flowery language so I may come across as blunt sometimes. Please be assured that my exasperation is directed at the long-lasting influence Hislop's work has had rather than at BS. If my manner has upset BS, then I am sorry. 

 

[The Librarian]

@Ann O'Maly users are not discouraged from openly discussing topics on this platform. The @admin has been very clear about this issue many times.