memorial of Christs death

Originally posted by Conrau K
Ok, here are the points I want you to address:

1. If Easter was an invention of the Roman Catholic Church, what do you think of the Orthodox churches which are coeval to the See of Rome and which celebrated Easter but always strenuously objected to the Roman date? Did they also invent Easter? Why did they observe a different date even past the Council o ...[text shortened]... now. Could you however supply relevant historical evidence though to support this claim?

1. You understood me wrong, I did not say the Roman Catholic Church
invented Easter. I said they adopted the old pagan holiday or spring
festival Easter in place of the Jewish Holiday and the feast of unleaven
bread. Linguistic studies indicate Easter comes from a word meaning
the rising sun and an ancient spring festival in honor of the sun. Easter
is a derivation from Eostre, who was an Anglo-Saxon goddess of spring.
Her festival was celebrated at the vernal equinox.

2. The churches of Asia supposed that they ought to keep the 14th day
of the moon for the Savior's passover, in which day the Jews were
commanded to kill the Passover lamb, and they did not accept the
Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. as having authority over them. About 154
A.D., Polycarp, a church leader in Asia Minor and a disciple of the apostle
John, traveled to Rome to urge Anicetus, the bishop of Rome, to observe
Nisan 14 according to the custom of the Eastern churches. Anicetus said
he was bound to maintain the practice of the presbyters before him.
(Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, book 5, chapter 24)
In !90 A.D. Victor became bishop of Rome and demanded that all adopt
the prevailing practice at Rome. Polycrates, a disciple of Polycarp, refused
giving many reasons to the contrary, whereupon Victor proceeded to
excommunicate Polycrates and the Christians who continued the Eastern
usage. (The Encyclopaedia Britannica, article "Easter"😉
The dispute continued until the early fourth century when those who observed
Nisan 14, known as the Quartodecimans, from the Latin word for 14, were
required by Emperor Constantine to conform to the empire-wide practice of
observing Easter on the Sunday following Nisan 14 rather than on that date
itself. Some of them fled persecution in the urban areas of the Roman Empire.
(Harpers's Bible Dictionary)

3. I answered this question in 1.

4. The "high day" Sabbath after the crucifixion on Passover is the 15th
day referred to in Leviticus 23:5-8 in observance of Feast of Unleavened
Bread. The Passover will be on the 14th day of the month, but may fall
on a different day of the week each year. Then the Feast of Unleaven
Bread follows it on the 15th day of the month and this day is always a
day of holy convocation when no laborious work can be done, in other
words, a Sabbath day of rest. This Sabbath started at sunset wednesday
and lasted to sunset thursday. The Sabbath referred to in Matthew 28:1
is the weekly Sabbath that always starts at sunset friday and last to
sunset saturday. Saturday is the seventh and last day of the week.
The first day of the week here is of course sunday.
Matthew 27:62 refers to the next day after the crucifixion which was the
thursday Sabbath of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. The chief priests
and Pharisees were concerned about what Jesus had said, "After three
days I am to rise again." (Matthew 27:63 NASB)
The Sabbath referred to in Mark 16:1 is this same thursday Sabbath of
the Feast of Unleaven Bread so they had to wait until after this Sabbbath
was over in order to buy the spices. So this day after this thursday
Sabbath was on friday when the women bought the spices.
The Sabbath of Luke 23:56 is the weekly Sabbath that starts sunset
friday and ends sunset saturday. Remember that Mark says the women
bought the spices on friday after the Sabbath and later that day luke
here says they they prepared those spices with perfume and then
friday at sunset the weekly Sabbath began so they rested according to
the commandment. It would have been easier to understand if one
author had filled in all the details in the exact order. This I believe is
proof that Jesus was not a false prophet and it was three full days
and three full nights that he was in the grave. (Matthew 12:40)
The Catholic teaching from friday sunset to sunday sunrise does not
work.

4. "The early development of the celebration of Easter and attendant
calendar disutes were largely a result of Christianity's attempt to
emancipate itself from Judaism. Sunday had already replaced the
Jewish sabbath early in the second century, and despite efforts in
Asia Minor to maintain the Jewish passover date of 14 Nisan for
Easter (hence the name Quartodecimans), the Council of Nicaea
adopted the annual Sunday following the full moon after the vernal
equinox (March 21)" (Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 1984,
article "Easter"😉.

Originally posted by RJHinds
1. You understood me wrong, I did not say the Roman Catholic Church
invented Easter. I said they adopted the old pagan holiday or spring
festival Easter in place of the Jewish Holiday and the feast of unleaven
bread. Linguistic studies indicate Easter comes from a word meaning
the rising sun and an ancient spring festival in honor of the sun. Easter
i equinox (March 21)" (Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 1984,
article "Easter"😉.

Linguistic studies indicate Easter comes from a word meaning
the rising sun and an ancient spring festival in honor of the sun. Easter
is a derivation from Eostre, who was an Anglo-Saxon goddess of spring.
Her festival was celebrated at the vernal equinox.

Well, this just gets even more implausible. Why would Romans in the 2nd century want to establish Easter on the basis of an Anglo-Saxon religious festival? They would not have had contact with Anglo-Saxons. Rome was cosmopolitan but I doubt that there would be a significant ethnic presence of Anglo-Saxons. Perhaps the death-knell to this argument is that Easter is only the English word for this season; in most Romantic languages, the word is something derived from Pascha, which has no pagan derivation; this is the word that Eusebius uses. The name 'Easter' could only have been applied later, after the feast had been established. So no pagan origin is possible.

It is really quite ridiculous to insist that early second century Christians in Rome were celebrating religious festivals derived from Anglo-Saxon ritual. Can't you see how implausible that is?

You haven't actually noticed 2. Sure, you just summarised what the issue was. I don't quite understand why, since I know what the dispute was about. I don't think you appreciate the implications of what Polycarp says: 1. Polycarp indicates that Easter was an apostolic tradition that was celebrated on the date of the Jewish Passover; 2. Rome had no power to coerce other churches to modify its liturgical practices. Easter clearly could not have been imposed by the Roman Church. Rather than a summary of the dispute between Polycarp and Victor, I would prefer you to respond to these points.

4. Can you refer me to a single biblical passage, other than this one under dispute, in which the day of the Feast of Unleaven Bread was called a Sabbath? It may have all the features of a Sabbath day but I would be surprised if they used the name Sabbath.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Linguistic studies indicate Easter comes from a word meaning
the rising sun and an ancient spring festival in honor of the sun. Easter
is a derivation from Eostre, who was an Anglo-Saxon goddess of spring.
Her festival was celebrated at the vernal equinox.

Well, this just gets even more implausible. Why would Romans in the 2nd century want to e ...[text shortened]... all the features of a Sabbath day but I would be surprised if they used the name Sabbath.[/b]

Yes, I know that in other languages it is the Passover, but
in English it is called Easter. English came from old English,
which came from the Anglo-Saxons. Look up "English" and
"Anglo-Saxon" in a reference book if you think I am lying
to you. As I mentioned to you before the English translation
of the Holy Bible authorized by King James translated the
Greek word for "Passover" as "Easter", because they
believed that the Passover had been changed to Easter
because of the date change made by the Roman Chatholic
Church. That date corresponded to the date that these anglo-
Saxons had celebrated as Easter before they were converted
to Christianity. It was not the date that the Jews would use to
celebrate Passover. But the Roman Catholics were gentiles
and did not want to celebrate a Jewish festival. But since
they had been converted to Christianity they did want to
celebrate the resurrection of Jesus the Christ on Sunday.
So they came up with a way of dating the Resurrection Sunday
that made it correspond to the old Anglo-Saxon festival. This
might have been done by accident, no one seems to know
for sure. But it is known for sure that they want to break
away from the Jews. A lot of pagan fertility ideas, like the Easter
bunny and Easter egg came in to the Christian celebration
because of this. And that is why the English speaking people
call it Easter Sunday.

Before I go on to other points, lets make sure we both understand
and agree with this point. Please look it up to see if I am lying
and give me the reference that proves it. Then we can discuss
that until we settle this point. Okay?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes, I know that in other languages it is the Passover, but
in English it is called Easter. English came from old English,
which came from the Anglo-Saxons. Look up "English" and
"Anglo-Saxon" in a reference book if you think I am lying
to you. As I mentioned to you before the English translation
of the Holy Bible authorized by King James translated the e reference that proves it. Then we can discuss
that until we settle this point. Okay?

Yes, I know that in other languages it is the Passover, but
in English it is called Easter. English came from old English,
which came from the Anglo-Saxons. Look up "English" and
"Anglo-Saxon" in a reference book if you think I am lying
to you. As I mentioned to you before the English translation
of the Holy Bible authorized by King James translated the
Greek word for "Passover" as "Easter", because they
believed that the Passover had been changed to Easter
because of the date change made by the Roman Chatholic
Church.

I have already addressed this before. First, the Roman Catholic Church never changed the date of Easter; many churches have maintained the Pre-Nicaean date. Second, no Catholic would want to confuse the Passover with Easter; Easter represents a great deal more than the Passover.

So they came up with a way of dating the Resurrection Sunday
that made it correspond to the old Anglo-Saxon festival. This
might have been done by accident, no one seems to know
for sure. But it is known for sure that they want to break
away from the Jews. A lot of pagan fertility ideas, like the Easter
bunny and Easter egg came in to the Christian celebration
because of this. And that is why the English speaking people
call it Easter Sunday.

This makes no sense. Why would 2nd century Christians, probably ignorant of Anglo-Saxon culture and language, base their major religious festival on a foreign, pagan festival?

Before I go on to other points, lets make sure we both understand
and agree with this point. Please look it up to see if I am lying
and give me the reference that proves it. Then we can discuss
that until we settle this point. Okay?

No; you ought to cite references. All you have argued is basically 'Look, it's from Anglo-Saxon religion; I won't address how implausible that is; if you doubt me, consult a dictionary'. That's basically it. How can I possibly argue with that if you continually refuse to answer my arguments and condescendingly ask me to fulfill your responsibility of research?

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Yes, I know that in other languages it is the Passover, but
in English it is called Easter. English came from old English,
which came from the Anglo-Saxons. Look up "English" and
"Anglo-Saxon" in a reference book if you think I am lying
to you. As I mentioned to you before the English translation
of the Holy Bible authorized by King James translated ...[text shortened]... my arguments and condescendingly ask me to fulfill your responsibility of research?

I believe I have already cited some references in my first answer
to you. If you refuse to look up those references what is the
point of looking up any more so you can refuse to look them up
too. I don't mean to be condescending, as you say, but if you
refuse to give me a little cooperation, how can I show to you that
I am not just making this up myself? Also, I would normally think,
if you really wanted to know the truth that you would be happy to look
my references up and even do additional research on your own. But
apparently, you are statisfied with what you believe now and,
therefore, there is no point in continuing this discussion with you.
Do you agree? Should we just agree to disagree and leave it
at that?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I believe I have already cited some references in my first answer
to you. If you refuse to look up those references what is the
point of looking up any more so you can refuse to look them up
too. I don't mean to be condescending, as you say, but if you
refuse to give me a little cooperation, how can I show to you that
I am not just making this up myse ...[text shortened]... is discussion with you.
Do you agree? Should we just agree to disagree and leave it
at that?

You told me to look up 'English' and 'Anglo-Saxon' in a reference book. Does that qualify as referencing?

And, really, I don't know any authoritative reference book that agrees with you that Easter is derived from a pagan ritual. The name might be but the Pascha clearly predates the use of the name Easter. Point me to some real contemporary scholarly sources which agree that Easter, even as early as the second century, was based on an Anglo-Saxon religious festival. I bet you can't.

Originally posted by Conrau K
You told me to look up 'English' and 'Anglo-Saxon' in a reference book. Does that qualify as referencing?

And, really, I don't know any authoritative reference book that agrees with you that Easter is derived from a pagan ritual. The name might be but the Pascha clearly predates the use of the name Easter. Point me to some real contemporary schol ...[text shortened]... ly as the second century, was based on an Anglo-Saxon religious festival. I bet you can't.

I did not say anything about Easter in the second Century.
This makes me wonder if you really read all that I wrote about.
If you did, then you did not understand what I was saying.
Easter was never associated with the passover that early.
Easter was not associated with the passover until after some
of the Anglo-Saxons were converted to Christianity. Even
then it was only the Anglo-Saxons that associated their spring
festival with the Passover. As you pointed out, all the other
nations derive the name from the Greek word "pascha", which
comes from the Hebrew word pesach (passover in English). For
example: Dutch - pasq, French- paques, Italian -pasqua,
Latin - pascha, Russian - paskha, Spanish - pascua
But the English speaking nations do not use the word "passover"
but instead they use the word "easter".

What I was trying to explain to you is why this happened.
But like I said before, we don't have to discuss it any further.

Originally posted by Conrau K
You told me to look up 'English' and 'Anglo-Saxon' in a reference book. Does that qualify as referencing?

And, really, I don't know any authoritative reference book that agrees with you that Easter is derived from a pagan ritual. The name might be but the Pascha clearly predates the use of the name Easter. Point me to some real contemporary schol ...[text shortened]... ly as the second century, was based on an Anglo-Saxon religious festival. I bet you can't.

Check out the article on Easter in the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia on the internet for one modern source.
I know you can easily look it up. Or just go to www.google
and search for Easter and one of the links is to the
wikipedia article. Read it all and then let me know if you
want to discontinue our discussion. I would be just as
happy to stop because it would be easier than trying to
go on with the discussion.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Linguistic studies indicate Easter comes from a word meaning
the rising sun and an ancient spring festival in honor of the sun. Easter
is a derivation from Eostre, who was an Anglo-Saxon goddess of spring.
Her festival was celebrated at the vernal equinox.

Well, this just gets even more implausible. Why would Romans in the 2nd century want to e ...[text shortened]... all the features of a Sabbath day but I would be surprised if they used the name Sabbath.[/b]

Here is a link to a recent news report that I just discovered
on the web when I was checking my email. His day of the
week for the Crucifixion is right, but I think he is wrong on
the year.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/42643674?GT1=43001

Originally posted by RJHinds
Here is a link to a recent news report that I just discovered
on the web when I was checking my email. His day of the
week for the Crucifixion is right, but I think he is wrong on
the year.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/42643674?GT1=43001

I have to take that back. I see now he is not referring to
the day of the crucifixion; but to the day before the crucifixion.
I first thought he was using the sunset to sunset method for
determining the days; but it appears on closer reading he is
using the Roman method like we do today from midnight to
midnight as the days. That explains why he got the date wrong.
He places it in the year 33 instead of the correct year 31 when
Jesus would be 35 years old by the jewish calendar.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I did not say anything about Easter in the second Century.
This makes me wonder if you really read all that I wrote about.
If you did, then you did not understand what I was saying.
Easter was never associated with the passover that early.
Easter was not associated with the passover until after some
of the Anglo-Saxons were converted to Christianity. Ev u is why this happened.
But like I said before, we don't have to discuss it any further.

Easter was never associated with the passover that early.
Easter was not associated with the passover until after some
of the Anglo-Saxons were converted to Christianity. Even
then it was only the Anglo-Saxons that associated their spring
festival with the Passover. As you pointed out, all the other
nations derive the name from the Greek word "pascha", which
comes from the Hebrew word pesach (passover in English). For
example: Dutch - pasq, French- paques, Italian -pasqua,
Latin - pascha, Russian - paskha, Spanish - pascua
But the English speaking nations do not use the word "passover"
but instead they use the word "easter".

I really have no idea how to sort out this confusing mess. Let me just reiterate: Pascha is the feast; Easter is a later name used by Anglo-Saxon Christians. Here is my argument: since Pascha predates the use of the word Easter, then Easter cannot have a pagan origin. If you disagree, please identify which premise you find objectionable.

I think perhaps you are notionally confused about the meaning of Pascha. Certainly in Judaism, the Pascha refers to the Passover. But for early Christians, the Pascha clearly refers to a commemoration of the Lord's passion, death and resurrection. It is a new Passover superseding the old Jewish Passover. It does not appear that the Quartodecimans were celebrating the Passover; I believe you conceded as much, saying that they only retained the date. This is identical to Easter, but clearly predates the use of the name Easter.

There is an interesting second century Easter homily by St Melito of Sardis, called the Peri Pascha (I use the word 'Easter' here; I could however say Pascha since this is in fact the word Melito uses). It clearly indicates the Jewish origins of Easter but also the new Christological dimension:

http://www.kerux.com/documents/KeruxV4N1A1.asp

Originally posted by RJHinds
Check out the article on Easter in the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia on the internet for one modern source.
I know you can easily look it up. Or just go to www.google
and search for Easter and one of the links is to the
wikipedia article. Read it all and then let me know if you
want to discontinue our discussion. I would be just as
happy to stop because it would be easier than trying to
go on with the discussion.

Look, I'm an educated guy. Roman history is my thesis area; this particular era is not my expertise but I know what the authorities out there think. What you are pushing is a largely discredited theory mostly from nineteenth century German scholarship. Again, all you have to do is present me with some current scholarship which states that the Easter season is of pagan origin. Your continual failure to offer that simply shows that you don't have any such evidence.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Look, I'm an educated guy. Roman history is my thesis area; this particular era is not my expertise but I know what the authorities out there think. What you are pushing is a largely discredited theory mostly from nineteenth century German scholarship. Again, all you have to do is present me with some current scholarship which states that the Easter season ...[text shortened]... igin. Your continual failure to offer that simply shows that you don't have any such evidence.

Did you read the entire wikipedia article on "Easter" or just
a portion of it. Have you checked any other encyclopedias
or other reference sources yourself on Easter? The answer
to that question seems obvious. You don't want to hear
something that might shatter your beliefs, so you just declare
the truth , a lie. You give no proof of your position, but declare
anything I try to present to you as discredited or that you
need more recent scholarship. Come on now, we are dealing
with history and most scholars agree that the most accurate
information comes from those closer in time to the events.
The declaration that you are an "educated guy" does not fly
with me for you might be an educated fool.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Did you read the entire wikipedia article on "Easter" or just
a portion of it. Have you checked any other encyclopedias
or other reference sources yourself on Easter? The answer
to that question seems obvious. You don't want to hear
something that might shatter your beliefs, so you just declare
the truth , a lie. You give no proof of your position, ...[text shortened]... ion that you are an "educated guy" does not fly
with me for you might be an educated fool.

Re-read your post but this time substitute the word Easter for evolution and imagine i wrote the post for you.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Did you read the entire wikipedia article on "Easter" or just
a portion of it. Have you checked any other encyclopedias
or other reference sources yourself on Easter? The answer
to that question seems obvious. You don't want to hear
something that might shatter your beliefs, so you just declare
the truth , a lie. You give no proof of your position, ...[text shortened]... ion that you are an "educated guy" does not fly
with me for you might be an educated fool.

Did you read the entire wikipedia article on "Easter" or just
a portion of it.

Yes, I did. Certainly no where does it state that Easter is of pagan derivation; the name may be but the wikipedia article quite conservatively maintains that Easter itself, when denoting the Paschal season, is of Jewish origin coming from the apostolic age. Perhaps I have missed something -- could you point out what part you think supports your argument?