25 december?

Originally posted by Conrau K
Yes, however, as has already been argued, knowledge of Mithraism remains imperfect. It could eventuate that significant, yet unknown, details of this cult are severely at odds with Christian doctrine. Furthermore, we actually have Christians writers in the second century, Tertullian and St Justin Martyr, acknowledging similarities but also repudiating Mithr ...[text shortened]... rite was for initiation whereas St Justin goes on to explain this as a weekly rite of worship.

Christian writers and "saints" are more noted for their misinformation and outright lies about most every other religion thru history.Read about the archaelogical finds in the middle east concerning Moses and the Exodus (carved in stone). They raided a city when leaving which makes it entirely understandable why Pharoah chased them across the desert. Read the incredible lies put forth by Spanish "priests" concerning the Inca for one. The melding of Christianity with other pagan religions can even be seen today in Central and South America.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Interesting that you manage a side swipe at Americans when in fact, as I posted previously, it was a scholarly monk from Northumbria who was later venerated in England that originally suggested that the name Easter originated from a pagan deity.

I didn't intend to generalise about all American Christians nor do I intend to confine this way he certainly did not say that the feast itself was pagan. Have you been following this thread?[/b]

"Have you been following this thread?"

Yes, closer than you apparently. Had you been following the thread you would realize from my first post on it that I did not claim that the Venerable Bede stated that Easter was of pagan origin but only the word. Try reading my first post again slowly. However the German scholar Grimm elaborated and did seem to be suggesting that Easter was at least in part of pagan origins. At least that's the way I understand his comments. But wait, Grimm was a European. How could he possibly make that mistake!?

Originally posted by caissad4
Christian writers and "saints" are more noted for their misinformation and outright lies about most every other religion thru history.Read about the archaelogical finds in the middle east concerning Moses and the Exodus (carved in stone). They raided a city when leaving which makes it entirely understandable why Pharoah chased them across the desert. Read t Christianity with other pagan religions can even be seen today in Central and South America.

Christian writers and "saints" are more noted for their misinformation and outright lies about most every other religion thru history.

Actually, Tertullian is not a saint but a condemned heretic and in fact, if you read his De Corona Militis, was quite sympathetic to the Mithraists -- at the end of the work, he says that the Mithraists should shame the Christians because in refusing to receive the crown, they show proper homage to their founder as opposed to Christian soldiers who too comfortably acquiesce to imperial power.

So I do not see what you gain from calling these writers liars. They acknowledge similarities with their own religion and, in the case of Tertullian, the early Christians seems openly sympathetic towards the Mithraists. If St Justin were lying, what would that prove? All St Justin says is that they practice a similar ritual, which is exactly what you said. And what why would Tertullian lie if he agreed with the Mithraists?

The melding of Christianity with other pagan religions can even be seen today in Central and South America.

But of course. Catholics really have no problem with this. For the same reason, if you read Christians Renaissance works, you will find many authors quite comfortably fusing pagan and Christian names. In Baptista Mantuanus' famous Parthenices, for example, God is also called Pater Oceani (another name for Zeus.) Catholics thinkers have long believed that the myths of other cultures secretly conceal the revelation of Christ.

A similar issue is the rites controversy. When the Jesuits first began to evangelise in Asia they controversially mixed traditional worship with Christian liturgy (the Dominicans objected and there was a protracted controversy with Rome but with modification was eventually allowed.) Ultimately the Catholic Church does not believe that Christian missionaries must expunge and supplant other cultures. Missionaries must be sensitive to that culture.

Originally posted by Ullr
"Have you been following this thread?"

Yes, closer than you apparently. Had you been following the thread you would realize from my first post on it that I did not claim that the Venerable Bede stated that Easter was of pagan origin but only the word. Try reading my first post again slowly. However the German scholar Grimm elaborated and did seem to be su ...[text shortened]... and his comments. But wait, Grimm was a European. How could he possibly make that mistake!?

Had you been following the thread you would realize from my first post on it that I did not claim that the Venerable Bede stated that Easter was of pagan origin but only the word.

I was not replying to the OP, however. I hadn't even read first your post. I was replying to a particular post concerning the significance of Christmas and another had replied to me arguing that Christmas has greater significance because of its name. What I am arguing from this is that this line of argument is characteristic of an insular Christianity, unaware of the multiplicity of Christian names and that other churches will attach different significances to these feasts. I then suggested that this argument is typical of insular Christianity can be found in America but obviously I do not wish to suggest that it is exclusively American.

But wait, Grimm was a European. How could he possibly make that mistake!?

Again, I am not saying that Europeans are infallible nor am I seeking to stereotype Americans. What I am suggesting is that in bible-belt America, Christians are insulated from other cultural expressions of Christianity and so, when they see that the word 'Easter' has pagan origins, they presume that the whole feast must be pagan, unaware that it has different names in different places. Obviously this is not true for all Americans because there are many European immigrant churches and obviously not all Europeans will be aware either because they may live in a culturally homogeneous area.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Had you been following the thread you would realize from my first post on it that I did not claim that the Venerable Bede stated that Easter was of pagan origin but only the word.

I was not replying to the OP, however. I hadn't even read first your post. I was replying to a particular post concerning the significance of Christmas and another had ...[text shortened]... ot all Europeans will be aware either because they may live in a culturally homogeneous area.[/b]

Okay some misunderstaning on my part then.

I agree with you that while the name Easter very well may be of pagan origin (although some suggest that is Bede's invention) that it is not originally a pagan festival. Rather I think in most of Europe (central and northern) it blended with heathen folk customs. This is only natural since you cannot expect a group of people to entirely give up their beloved folk customs and festivals when adopting the new religion although some (JW's for instance) would have had them do just that.

I also find it interesting that the basic concept of Easter (i.e. Resurrection), at least as it is practised today in the Anglophile world, has similarities to how a heathen might have celebrated to return of spring. I suppose to the Christian the resurrection of Jesus was in a way the fulfillment of a divine promise, confirmation that Jesus and thereby God loves and cares about mankind. Yet a heathen might also say at the return of Spring "that the Gods have not forgotten us". Oh I know and expect that a Christian would say (and I expect some here will) that no it is not the same and they'll quote verse after verse from the Bible. It's different and more meaningful I would expect to hear. To me, at it's most basic core idea, not so much.

Originally posted by Ullr
Okay some misunderstaning on my part then.

I agree with you that while the name Easter very well may be of pagan origin (although some suggest that is Bede's invention) that it is not originally a pagan festival. Rather I think in most of Europe (central and northern) it blended with heathen folk customs. This is only natural since you cannot expect a gr ...[text shortened]... ore meaningful I would expect to hear. To me, at it's most basic core idea, not so much.

Yes, Bede does believe that there is a connection between Easter and spring and certainly in the Western world the Easter egg encapsulates that relationship (as an Australian, this is personally confusing because our birds do not lay eggs during easter but rather before Christmas.) However, Easter is very early recorded and its date was initially connected to the Jewish festival of the Passover (which, mind you, may have originally come from a Canaanite spring festival.) We know this because very early on in the Church there was a dispute between St Polycarp and Pope Victor (at around 150AD) concerning the date of this festival in which the Pope seriously threatened excommunication.

Originally posted by danielnovacovici
Nobody believes that Jesus was born on 25th of december? Ask randomly 10 church going christians and you will have a big surprise....like I did myself.

And this holiday is not one of the major christian feasts?....common man...is the most important after Eastern.

You could ask 12 people on the street what was in their sausages last night and most wouldn't know; so developing an argument that historical knowledge of dates and religious festivals is proof of spiritual validity (or not) is ridiculous - have you got anything else in your bag?