I cringe when church signs promote Easter eggs

[Amos_with_goats]

Ok, so let's see... we spend the first 6 (7?) years of a child's life 'celebrating' "Easter", giving them Easter eggs and baskets of candy and chocolate bunnies... then when they are old enough we tell them it is really about the resurrection... and that it is the MOST important thing they understand... that Christ had defeated sin and death through rising from the dead.....

SO important, that we spent the first 6(or 7) years of their lives telling them all about Easter eggs and baskets of candy and chocolate bunnies....

THAT makes perfect sense to me... almost like how the guy in the red suit with the reindeer (name like Satin)... makes it SO easy to clear up the whole 'Virgin Birth' thing..... [/QUOTE]

I can't remember ever being told that eggs that were brightly colored and chocolate bunnies represented anything. They were part of the celebration of the Resurrection.

What on earth is all the 'decoder' stuff?

See the post above. Why confuse the young child with all the trappings... Easter eggs and baskets of candy and chocolate bunnies....

Really? Is this the best way to point to the most significant single event in human history? Why would we present such a strangely distorted message to share something so important?

The decoder ring comment has to do with the cryptic nature of the mixed message.

[Vhayes]

Ok, so let's see... we spend the first 6 (7?) years of a child's life 'celebrating' "Easter", giving them Easter eggs and baskets of candy and chocolate bunnies... then when they are old enough we tell them it is really about the resurrection... and that it is the MOST important thing they understand... that Christ had defeated sin and death through rising from the dead.....

SO important, that we spent the first 6(or 7) years of their lives telling them all about Easter eggs and baskets of candy and chocolate bunnies....

THAT makes perfect sense to me... almost like how the guy in the red suit with the reindeer (name like Satin)... makes it SO easy to clear up the whole 'Virgin Birth' thing.....

See the post above. Why confuse the young child with all the trappings... Easter eggs and baskets of candy and chocolate bunnies....

Really? Is this the best way to point to the most significant single event in human history? Why would we present such a strangely distorted message to share something so important?

The decoder ring comment has to do with the cryptic nature of the mixed message.

Nevermind, Amos. I agree completely. I thought the colored eggs could be indicative of the new life of Spiring (which to me has always been God's way of showing mankind about the resurrection) and chocolate was a way of saying it's time to celebrate, the darkness of death has passed. No one taught me that, it's just what I thought.

Now I see the error of my ways. I have been givin honor to some fertility goddess I never heard of before some Christian brought it up.

[Amos_with_goats]

...Nevermind, Amos. I agree completely.....

....Now I see the error of my ways. I have been givin honor to some fertility goddess I never heard of before some Christian brought it up.

Oh good.


Maybe now we can talk about your swearing allegiance to the 'great pumpkin'.

[Vhayes]

Oh good.


Maybe now we can talk about your swearing allegiance to the 'great pumpkin'.

Maybe. And I am certain from this point on I will vote straight Republican ticket, even for dog catcher. AND I will fundraise for Palin and change wiki entries so she can ALWAYS be correct.

Because these things MATTER. I just hadn't seen it in the right light before.

[teddyv]

Maybe. And I am certain from this point on I will vote straight Republican ticket, even for dog catcher. AND I will fundraise for Palin and change wiki entries so she can ALWAYS be correct.

Because these things MATTER. I just hadn't seen it in the right light before.

And then Paul Revere will ride into town and give you toys.

[Vhayes]

And then Paul Revere will ride into town and give you toys.

YES!! And Chocolate bunnies and branches of holly AND colored eggs.

[shepherdsword]

Every quote contained in this posting as well as the articles referenced are from contemporary writers, many of whom are admittedly anti-Christian.

Furthermore, the only reference that seems to cite an archaeological source, the reference to the article by a Larry Boemler "Asherah and Easter" in the May/June 1992 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review does not even exist. I have maintained a subscription to BAR for over 30 years and checked the BAR online library. I am posting a link to that particular issue so you can see for yourself that there is no article "Asherah and Easter" or any article by a Larry Boemler:

http://members.bib-arch.org/publicat...ume=18&Issue=3

Come on, are "Sabbats for Witches" and "teenwitch" supposed to be authoritative sources?

I have heard these same kinds of arguments used to try to prove that the flood account in Genesis is borrowed from the Babylonian flood account "Enuma
Elish" based on nothing more than a few similarities. And critics also contend that the Law of Moses was an adoption of the Code of Hammurabi based again on nothing more than some similarities or that the Jewish feasts are adoptions of pagan festivals because they were observed at the same time of year. These are nothing more than thinly veiled attempts to undermind the historical veracity of both Judaism and Christianity, and the Bible itself.

The truth is that neither the Jewish nor yet the Christian holidays even occur at the same time as ancient pagan holidays. Every culture the world over, from Babylon to Britain, from Egypt to the Americas, from the ancient Mayans to the Ming dynasty, every culture the world over celebrated the major astronomical events of the year; spring and fall equinox, summer and winter solstice, new moons, lunar and solar eclipses, planetary conjunctions, comets, meteors, and every other event that took place in the heavens. That can in no way be taken to mean that they "adopted" these observance from each other.

But to really throw a wrench in the works, neither the Jewish nor yet the Christian observances occur on any of these astronomical dates that were being celebrated by pagans. There is no ancient culture that celebrated a festival on the 14th day after the first new moon after the spring equinox as Judaism does, or the first Sunday following the first full moon after the spring equinox as Christianity does. There is not one single manuscript or tablet or artifact or inscription that metnions a birthday of any god on December 25. And the only evidence that is acceptable is an ancient tablet or inscription or scroll that states such, not some 21st century writer's opinion.

Take for example the claims that the article makes about Tammuz. The foremost authority on the Sumerian gods (Tammuz was a Sumerian deity) is the esteemed Sumerian scholar Samuel Noah Kramer who translated the Sumerian Tablet from Nippur, the only actual historical evidence we have regarding the cult of Tammuz and their beliefs and practices, and according to these ancient tablets the feast day for Tammuz was celebrated at the summer solstice with a 6-day period of mourning for the beginning of the summer drought. This was the “weeping” that is mentioned by Ezekiel and it occurred in June. I have read everything Kramer has published on Tammuz and there is no record of a festival for Tammuz being celebrated on December 25. Here is a link to the Samuel Noah Kramer Institute of Assyriology and Ancient Near Eastern Studies and you can contact them to verify the information:
http://www.biu.ac.il/JS/Kramer/

So there is a decided lack of any real scholarship in the article you posted, and if you would care to click on the link to the supposed BAR article you will see that the link which is supposed to contain a copy of the BAR article "cannot be found." Same for the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. In fact, it looks like the only "links" that might actually lead to a working site are the witch related ones, and I won't even bother with them.

In Christ,
Pilgrim

AHA! So you are the guy that wrote that erroneous comment on his freethoughtpedia page.

Here is a reprint of the article:
http://www.truthontheweb.org/easter.htm

The pagan origins of easter and dec 25th are well documented. The historical sources are so numerous as to be exhaustive. However,most importantly we have no scriptural evidence whatsoever to back any celebration of Christ"mas" or easter. The closest thing to easter celibration is passover and the feast of firstfruits.
Therefore since there is no scriptural backing for it and plenty of evidence for the pagans origins of them both they should be considered non-christian.

I will wait for you to present some sound evidence for the Easter/Christmas celebrations being "christian"...but I won't hold my breath. Just because the pagan RCC supports them doesn't make them christian. There is strong evidence going back all the way to the 3rd century describing how Constantine "Christianized" these pagan high days.

Vine discredited them:

"The term 'Easter' is not of Christian origin. It is another form of Astarte, one of the titles of the Chaldean goddess, the queen of heaven. The festival of Pasch [Passover and the Feast of Unleavens] was a continuation of the Jewish [that is, God's] feast....from this Pasch the pagan festival of 'Easter' was quite distinct and was introduced into the apostate Western religion, as part of the attempt to adapt pagan festivals to Christianity." (W.E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger, William White, Jr., Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, article: Easter, p.192)

Morton Smith of the Presbyterian church discredited them:

"There is no warrant in Scripture for the observance of Christmas and Easter as holydays, rather the contrary...and such observance is contrary to the principles of the Reformed faith, conducive to will-worship, and not in harmony with the simplicity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. " (Morton H. Smith, How is the Gold Become Dim, Jackson, Mississippi: Steering Committee for a Continuing Presbyterian Church, etc., 1973, p.98)

The list is exhaustive and I can find christian sources for their pagan origins all day long but here's Unger's view:

"Easter. [Gk. pascha, from Heb. pesah] The Passover ..., and so translated in every passage except the KJV: 'intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people' [Acts 12:4]. In the earlier English versions Easter had been frequently used as the translation of pascha. At the last revision [1611 A.V.] Passover was substituted in all passages but this...The word Easter is of Saxon origin, the name is eastra, the goddess of spring in whose honor sacrifices were offered about Passover time each year. By the eighth century Anglo-Saxons had adopted the name to designate the celebration of Christ's resurrection." (New Unger's Bible Dictionary, article: "Easter")

Here's a good academic source:

"It is called Easter in the English, from the goddess Eostre, worshipped by the Saxons with peculiar ceremonies in the month of April." (Encyclopædia Britannica, Vol II, Edinburgh: A. Bell & C. Macfarquhar, 1768, p.464)

[tango]

What is in dispute is whether or not the birth, death, and resurrection accounts of Jesus are actual historical events or adoptions of pagan beliefs and customs. If you have not gotten that far in this controversy, then you need to read a little more, or a little more carefully.

Ah yes, the good old question of my reading comprehension.

The problem is that it’s not true. Christianity did not simply pick a date out of thin air, or worse borrow some pagan celebration and give it a Christian veneer. Easter and Christmas were historical events and the dates we celebrate these events can be traced back to Apostolic times and are rooted in history and can be tested historically, along with every other historical event in the Gospels.

Of course. That would explain why the dates are often questioned, because they are so well documented.

But the issue of whether or not the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus are actual historical events or simply adoptions of pagan beliefs and festivals goes to the very core of Christian beliefs. These attacks are not simply an attempt to discredit the date of observance, they are attacks against the events themselves and the charge is that they are not actual historical events but simply adaptations of pagan beliefs.

The question of whether Jesus Christ ever existed as a human being is a totally different matter to the question of whether he was born on December 25. We can accept that he lived as a human being without knowing the precise date of his birth.

Nonsense? Sigh. Okay, look at this excerpt from a post right here on this subject.

“Many religious historians and liberal theologians believe that the death and resurrection legends were first associated with Attis, many centuries before the birth of Jesus. They were simply grafted onto stories of Jesus' life in order to make Christian theology more acceptable to Pagans. Others suggest that many of the events in Jesus' life that were recorded in the gospels were lifted from the life of Krishna…”

This is an excerpt from the previous post #43 by shepherdsword which blatantly shows the attempt to undermine the Gospels by claiming the birth, death and resurrection events in the life of Jesus that the Gospels record and Christians observe were not actual historical events but were simply “lifted” from pagan myths and “grafted onto stories of Jesus’ life.”

Which is completely not the point I'm making. The claim that Jesus never existed is totally different to the claim that Jesus wasn't born on December 25. Just like we might dispute whether Barack Obama was born in Hawaii or Kenya or somewhere else without disputing the fact that he was born somewhere, so we can dispute whether Jesus was born on December 25 or some other day without disputing that he was born. "When" is a totally different concept to "whether". If it turns out that Jesus was actually born on what we'd currently called September 13 in the year 7BC it doesn't change the fact that he was born.

Can you hear me now?

I hear you, you're just repeating the same stuff. Can you hear me?

[Pilgrim]

AHA! So you are the guy that wrote that erroneous comment on his freethoughtpedia page.

Here is a reprint of the article:
http://www.truthontheweb.org/easter.htm

Sorry, I have no idea what you are speaking of, the only comments I have offered have been on Christian forums such as this one. The "article" that was referenced for historical support but does not exist is the article cited in Biblical Archaeology Review by a Larry Boemler which you cited in your post, and which the article you now reference also cites.

The pagan origins of easter and dec 25th are well documented. The historical sources are so numerous as to be exhaustive.

That's not true. What is well documented is a host of opinions of contemporary men who express their opinions without any reference to any actual historical records that are extant that support their claims.

However,most importantly we have no scriptural evidence whatsoever to back any celebration of Christ"mas" or easter. The closest thing to easter celibration is passover and the feast of firstfruits.

Passover and Firstfruits are Old Covenant observances. Easter and Christmas are New Covenant observances.

Passover commemorated the deliverance of Israel from the bondage of Egypt. Communion, also known as the Lord's Supper, is the Christian observance of the deliverance from sin and death in fulfillment of the old Passover type.

Easter is the observance of the resurrection of Jesus on Sunday following the Passover.

The first Christmas was celebrated by the Hosts of Heaven, by the holy family, by the wise men, by those shepherds who kept watch over the Lord's flocks, and by all those who wondered over the things the shepherds told them and the message "Behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord." You may not consider that day on which Christ was born to be worthy of commemoration, it's true we are not commanded to in the Scripture, but I and probably most Christians believe that message is still meant to be shared with "all people," that "this day" is born unto you in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord." And even though we are not "commanded" to observe the day of Jesus' birth, to suggest that commemorating the wondrous works of God with feasting and celebration is somehow not "Biblical" means, well ... I would suggest that you refer to the Bible.

As to the early observance of the Resurrection, we have a number of sources. First and perhaps the most ancient is the testimony of the Coptic Church of Egypt, which can never be confused with the Roman Catholic Church and in fact they militantly defend their historic independence from the church at Rome and have contributed more to the formation of formal Christian doctine and practice than has the Roman Catholic Church. The Coptic Church was founded by the Apostle Mark who wrote the Gospel of Mark. Mark was martyred in the year 68 A.D. while celebrating the feast of the Resurrection on the 29th day of Baramudah (according to the Coptic calendar) when he was dragged from church by a mob of pagans who were enraged that Christians were keeping an observance of their own rather than honoring the pagan holiday being celebrated by the pagans so they drug Mark from the church, tied a rope around his neck and drug him for two days until his body was so badly mangled that he was finally decapitated. The Copts have a history that actually predates the Roman Catholic Church and you can find this information here:

http://www.copticchurch.net/synaxarium/8_30.html

Also we have a portion of the letter written from the churches of Palestine dated to the early 4th century wherein they testify that their custom was to observe the Resurrection of Jesus on the first Sunday following the paschal full moon according to the tradition that had been handed down to them from the Apostles and that they had written letters to and received letters from the church in Egypt that they too were following the custom handed down from the Apostles. An excerpt of the letter is appended here:

"The bishops indeed of Palestine, whom we have just mentioned, Narcissus and Theophilus, and Cassius with them, the bishop of the church at Tyre, and Clarus of Ptolemais, and those that came together with them, having advanced many things respecting the tradition that had been handed down to them by succession from the apostles, regarding the passover, at the close of the epistle, use these words: "Endeavor to send copies of the epistle through all the church, that we may not give occasion to those whose minds are easily led astray. But we inform you also, that they observe the same day at Alexandria, which we also do; for letters have been sent by us to them, and from them to us, so that we celebrate the holy season with one mind and at one time." (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, V, 25.)

This controversy that was settled at the Council of Nicea was about the proper time to observe the resurection, whether on the 14th Nisan according to the reckoning of the Jews no matter what day of the week that might fall on as the churches in Syria and Babylon were doing, or on the Sunday following the Paschal moon which was the day historically when the resurrection actually occurred as the churches in Palestine, Egypt, Greece and Rome were doing. The decision was made by unanimous vote of all the churches, not by any decree of Constantine nor yet by the church at Rome, which would have been a fine trick as the bishop of Rome, Victor was not even present at the Council as his health did not allow him to make the journey.

These are two historic records from churches in Palestine and in Egypt (not the Roman Catholic Church) one of which states that their observance of the resurrection of Jesus was handed down to them from the Apostles and the older of which states that the Apostle Mark and the church in Alexandria, Egypt was celebrating the Resurrection of Jesus during the lifetime of the Apostles.

Therefore since there is no scriptural backing for it and plenty of evidence for the pagans origins of them both they should be considered non-christian.

I will wait for you to present some sound evidence for the Easter/Christmas celebrations being "christian"...but I won't hold my breath. Just because the pagan RCC supports them doesn't make them christian. There is strong evidence going back all the way to the 3rd century describing how Constantine "Christianized" these pagan high days.

If you are laboring under the misguided impression that the Roman Catholic Church is the only church that dates back to Apostolic founding, or that the history of the Roman Catholic Church is somehow the history of Christianity itself, or that either the Roman Catholic Church or Emperor Constantine were somehow the inventors of Easter and Christmas or all Christian doctrine and practice ... you have some surprises, and much study, in store.

In Christ,
Pilgrim

[Pilgrim]

Of course. That would explain why the dates are often questioned, because they are so well documented.

Tango, just how many Christian beliefs are not being questioned and disputed and argued and used as fuel for controversy? Is that somehow a reflection on their veracity? Or more a reflection on those who do not rest day or night in their attempts to discredit and thereby undermine the Christian faith?

The question of whether Jesus Christ ever existed as a human being is a totally different matter to the question of whether he was born on December 25. We can accept that he lived as a human being without knowing the precise date of his birth.

Perhaps for you that is the extent of the issue, but not for everyone.

So if you want to limit yourself to what is actually known, then in all honesty all you can really say for sure is that the Bible does not state what day Jesus was born. But to say that "we don't know when Jesus was born," or to claim that December 25 is not the date of his birth is to ignore all the historical evidence, and there is a wealth of evidence to bring to bear, not to mention the testimony and practice of men and women who suffered persecution, prison, torture, and even death rather than compromise the Gospel.

Perhaps you do not value their testimony, and that is your choice. But I do. The nativity of Jesus holds such a prominent place in the Gospels that it is simply inconceivable that Jesus' own mother, or those who knew him and walked with him and lived with him and loved him, that they would ... what? just forget when Jesus was born? Or simply disregard the knowledge as if it was somehow an unimportant little detail? Or just forgot to mention it to anyone?

I don't think so. I wouldn't have.

In Christ,
Pilgrim

[shepherdsword]

Sorry, I have no idea what you are speaking of, the only comments I have offered have been on Christian forums such as this one. The "article" that was referenced for historical support but does not exist is the article cited in Biblical Archaeology Review by a Larry Boemler which you cited in your post, and which the article you now reference also cites.

I sent you a link for the article. I do notice however that you haven't disputed any of the sources I quoted that proved my claim.

That's not true. What is well documented is a host of opinions of contemporary men who express their opinions without any reference to any actual historical records that are extant that support their claims.

I say it is true and I have provided evidence why. Your saying it isn't true doesn't make it so. Repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make it true.

Passover and Firstfruits are Old Covenant observances. Easter and Christmas are New Covenant observances.

Post some scriptural evidence for them being "new covenant" observances. Passover and Firstfruits have plenty of scriptural evidence to back them as being ordained by God.There isn't one shred of evidence in the scripture for what you claim.

Passover commemorated the deliverance of Israel from the bondage of Egypt. Communion, also known as the Lord's Supper, is the Christian observance of the deliverance from sin and death in fulfillment of the old Passover type.
Easter is the observance of the resurrection of Jesus on Sunday following the Passover.

I am still waiting for some scripture to back up "Easter" as a celebration of the resurrection.

The first Christmas was celebrated by the Hosts of Heaven, by the holy family, by the wise men, by those shepherds who kept watch over the Lord's flocks, and by all those who wondered over the things the shepherds told them and the message "Behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord." You may not consider that day on which Christ was born to be worthy of commemoration, it's true we are not commanded to in the Scripture, but I and probably most Christians believe that message is still meant to be shared with "all people," that "this day" is born unto you in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord." And even though we are not "commanded" to observe the day of Jesus' birth, to suggest that commemorating the wondrous works of God with feasting and celebration is somehow not "Biblical" means, well ... I would suggest that you refer to the Bible.

This would be funny if it wasn't so sad. First you admit that there is no scripture that commands us to celibate Christmas and then you tell me to "refer to' my bible.
There is much historical data that disputes Jesus being born any where near the time of Dec. 25th. There is also much data that records what religions actually celebrated this day...all of them pagan. There was no first "Christ'mas" since the very word has it's origins in the catholic church for a "mass" that was celebrated on Dec 25th. Therefore "this day" has nothing to do with the pagan date of Dec 25th.
I suggest you take your own advice and "refer to your bible"

As to the early observance of the Resurrection, we have a number of sources. First and perhaps the most ancient is the testimony of the Coptic Church of Egypt, which can never be confused with the Roman Catholic Church and in fact they militantly defend their historic independence from the church at Rome and have contributed more to the formation of formal Christian doctine and practice than has the Roman Catholic Church. The Coptic Church was founded by the Apostle Mark who wrote the Gospel of Mark. Mark was martyred in the year 68 A.D. while celebrating the feast of the Resurrection on the 29th day of Baramudah (according to the Coptic calendar) when he was dragged from church by a mob of pagans who were enraged that Christians were keeping an observance of their own rather than honoring the pagan holiday being celebrated by the pagans so they drug Mark from the church, tied a rope around his neck and drug him for two days until his body was so badly mangled that he was finally decapitated. The Copts have a history that actually predates the Roman Catholic Church and you can find this information here:

I am only interested in once source...the bible. Can you give me a reference from that?

Also we have a portion of the letter written from the churches of Palestine dated to the early 4th century wherein they testify that their custom was to observe the Resurrection of Jesus on the first Sunday following the paschal full moon according to the tradition that had been handed down to them from the Apostles and that they had written letters to and received letters from the church in Egypt that they too were following the custom handed down from the Apostles. An excerpt of the letter is appended here:

"The bishops indeed of Palestine, whom we have just mentioned, Narcissus and Theophilus, and Cassius with them, the bishop of the church at Tyre, and Clarus of Ptolemais, and those that came together with them, having advanced many things respecting the tradition that had been handed down to them by succession from the apostles, regarding the passover, at the close of the epistle, use these words: "Endeavor to send copies of the epistle through all the church, that we may not give occasion to those whose minds are easily led astray. But we inform you also, that they observe the same day at Alexandria, which we also do; for letters have been sent by us to them, and from them to us, so that we celebrate the holy season with one mind and at one time." (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, V, 25.)

This only proves that the church was infiltrated with paganism in the 4th century. I don't see any scriptural references for it so it can be accurately defined as a tradition of men.

This controversy that was settled at the Council of Nicea was about the proper time to observe the resurection, whether on the 14th Nisan according to the reckoning of the Jews no matter what day of the week that might fall on as the churches in Syria and Babylon were doing, or on the Sunday following the Paschal moon which was the day historically when the resurrection actually occurred as the churches in Palestine, Egypt, Greece and Rome were doing. The decision was made by unanimous vote of all the churches, not by any decree of Constantine nor yet by the church at Rome, which would have been a fine trick as the bishop of Rome, Victor was not even present at the Council as his health did not allow him to make the journey.

The controversy is not settled. I have posted plenty of evidence for the pagan origins of easter. Christain and academic sources. The only way to countermand such evidence is to post some scripture that overrides it.

These are two historic records from churches in Palestine and in Egypt (not the Roman Catholic Church) one of which states that their observance of the resurrection of Jesus was handed down to them from the Apostles and the older of which states that the Apostle Mark and the church in Alexandria, Egypt was celebrating the Resurrection of Jesus during the lifetime of the Apostles.

Stating that the tradition was apostolic could only be proven from scripture. There are none so the account is spurious at best.


Nice talking to you though. We will let the readers decide as to whose position is strongest.I have wasted all the time I am able to on this.

If you are laboring under the misguided impression that the Roman Catholic Church is the only church that dates back to Apostolic founding, or that the history of the Roman Catholic Church is somehow the history of Christianity itself, or that either the Roman Catholic Church or Emperor Constantine were somehow the inventors of Easter and Christmas or all Christian doctrine and practice ... you have some surprises, and much study, in store.

In Christ,
Pilgrim

There isn't any church that dates back to the apostolic age. However,I am sure that there are a few who make such erroneous claims...such as the catholic church.

[Pilgrim]

I sent you a link for the article. I do notice however that you haven't disputed any of the sources I quoted that proved my claim.

The link you provided is to a website called "Truth on the Web" and an article written by Kenneth and/or Brian Hoeck who list a litany of naysayers making claims that are not supported with one single bit of actual historical evidence that supports the claims they are making, who do in fact quote discredited sources (Alexander Hislop for example) and cite references which do not even exist (the ficticious Biblical Archeology Review article for example).

I say it is true and I have provided evidence why. Your saying it isn't true doesn't make it so. Repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make it true.

Your saying it is true does not count, and you have not provided any evidence, only speculation and opinion. Can you provide even one citation to an actual historical text or archaeological artifact that proves that Christians adopted a pagan holiday for either Christmas or Easter?

Post some scriptural evidence for them being "new covenant" observances. Passover and Firstfruits have plenty of scriptural evidence to back them as being ordained by God.There isn't one shred of evidence in the scripture for what you claim.

You misunderstand. The Christian celebration of the birth and resurrection of Jesus is not a commandment from God to be obeyed, it is a miracle from God that is cherished and honored and commemorated in a manner that is wholly Biblical, indeed, according to the most ancient of Biblical modes of celebration, feasting.

I am still waiting for some scripture to back up "Easter" as a celebration of the resurrection.

Matthew 28:1-10, Mark 16:1-11, Luke 24:1-12, and John 20:1-10 all testify that Jesus was resurrected on the Sunday that followed Passover. Easter is the Sunday that follows Passover, the day when Jesus was resurrected.

So exactly what pagan holiday fell on the Sunday that follows Passover?

This would be funny if it wasn't so sad. First you admit that there is no scripture that commands us to celibate Christmas and then you tell me to "refer to' my bible.

My suggestion that you refer to your Bible was in confirmation of the mode of God's people in celebrating the great works of God.

There is much historical data that disputes Jesus being born any where near the time of Dec. 25th.

Then please provide it. You're saying so doesn't make it so.

There is also much data that records what religions actually celebrated this day...all of them pagan. There was no first "Christ'mas" since the very word has it's origins in the catholic church for a "mass" that was celebrated on Dec 25th. Therefore "this day" has nothing to do with the pagan date of Dec 25th.

True, the celebration of Jesus' birth was historically called "the feast of the nativity," and Easter was referred to as "the feast of the resurrection," terminology that was taken, as so much of Christianity was, from the Old Testament. That is the true roots of Christianity, Judaism, not paganism.

This only proves that the church was infiltrated with paganism in the 4th century.

Oh? Which church? Jerusalem? Antioch? Alexandria? Myra? Perhaps the churches in Spain? Or maybe you're talking about the Greek Orthodox? Or maybe the Eastern Orthodox? Or the Oriental churches? Gaul? Asia Minor? Which one exactly was "infiltrated with paganism"? Or are you only referring to the church at Rome? Or are you suggesting that ALL of Christendom had sold out to paganism? Are you even aware of the history of these Christians you so nonchalantly condemn? Can you even name one of the men who lived during this period? Or are you unaware that when you wave your hand at "the church" and accuse them of paganizing the faith that you're talking about real people? Can you name one of the "Confessors" that so many Christians had the unenviable honor of earning the title of during these years? Do you even know what a Confessor is? It's someone who has been persecuted, arrested, imprisoned and endured torture and yet refused to renounce Christ, or one who suffers death rather than recant his faith. The full list of names is known only to God, but it was such a bloody time that even the Roman historians called these edicts ordering this butchering of men, women and children "the Bloody Edicts." Many of those venerable old saints who sat at that council of Nicea bore in their scarred, twisted, broken bodies the proof of their faith. But I suppose if you are such an expert on these 4th century Christians and how they were living their lives and what doctrines they held that you can probably name at least a few of them, maybe the leaders? Without googling it. Can you name even one? One day you will meet "the church," these men and women that you have accused, face to face, so you should be very sure about your facts before you condemn them.

The controversy is not settled. I have posted plenty of evidence for the pagan origins of easter. Christain and academic sources. The only way to countermand such evidence is to post some scripture that overrides it.

What you have posted is contemporary opinion. You have not posted one single shred of actual historical or archaelogical evidence to support your claims that Christians were busily adopting paganism when in fact there is a letter written by the Roman Emperor Julian the Apostate which proves that in fact it was the Christians who were leading such pious lives, not given to drunkeness or greed or adultery, and lovingly ministering to the poor and the widows and orphans that pagans were being converted to Christ in such numbers that the Emperor instructed his High Priest to order the pagan priests to begin to emulate the Christians in order to try to win back the pagans to the ancient pagan gods of Rome. And that's testimony from the Romam Emperor that states exactly the opposite of what you are claiming. (Letter to Arsacius, High-Priest of Galatia, 362 A.D.) So where's your "evidence" that would contradict the testimony of the 4th century Roman Emperor? It wasn't the Christians adopting pagan customs, it was the pagans adopting the Christian cutoms, and we have the written testimony to that from the Emperor himself.

Stating that the tradition was apostolic could only be proven from scripture.

Nonsense. The only "history" you will accept is what discredits Christianity.

There isn't any church that dates back to the apostolic age. However,I am sure that there are a few who make such erroneous claims...such as the catholic church.

Then I must have a faulty New Testament because my copy has pages and pages about a church at *gasp* Rome! Mentioned right there in the Scriptures.

In Christ,
Pilgrim

[tango]

Tango, just how many Christian beliefs are not being questioned and disputed and argued and used as fuel for controversy? Is that somehow a reflection on their veracity? Or more a reflection on those who do not rest day or night in their attempts to discredit and thereby undermine the Christian faith?

So why are you so concerned about precise dates? Let's say that - shock horror - Jesus was actually born on what we now call June 25. Would it in any way lessen his ministry? Would it in any way lessen the sacrifice he made for us? Would it render a single word of the Bible any less true?

If we're looking to share the testimony of who Jesus was and what he has done for us, what does it matter whether he was born on December 25 or some other date? Would Christopher Columbus' achievements be degraded in any way if it turned out his birthday had been recorded incorrectly? Why is Jesus Christ about the only historical figure whose actual date of birth is regarded with such concern?

Perhaps for you that is the extent of the issue, but not for everyone.

So why not pick our battles and focus on what matters? If you describe the testimony of what Jesus has done for you, is that in any way devalued if someone can point out that Jesus wasn't actually born on December 25?

So if you want to limit yourself to what is actually known, then in all honesty all you can really say for sure is that the Bible does not state what day Jesus was born. But to say that "we don't know when Jesus was born," or to claim that December 25 is not the date of his birth is to ignore all the historical evidence, and there is a wealth of evidence to bring to bear, not to mention the testimony and practice of men and women who suffered persecution, prison, torture, and even death rather than compromise the Gospel.

I suspect the people who died rather than compromise the Gospel were more concerned with the message itself rather than when the man behind it all happened to be born. "Born of a virgin" carries a lot more impact than "born on December 25". The angels proclaiming the message to Mary have a lot more impact than the precise date it all happened.

Perhaps you do not value their testimony, and that is your choice. But I do. The nativity of Jesus holds such a prominent place in the Gospels that it is simply inconceivable that Jesus' own mother, or those who knew him and walked with him and lived with him and loved him, that they would ... what? just forget when Jesus was born? Or simply disregard the knowledge as if it was somehow an unimportant little detail? Or just forgot to mention it to anyone?

What testimony are we talking here? The disciples? Would the disciples even have known the precise date of Jesus birth? If it was half as important as you make out perhaps someone might have done something crazy. You know, like writing it down in their books of the important stuff. If they didn't write it down then perhaps they didn't know, or perhaps they did regard the precise date as being an unimportant little detail. Perhaps they looked at everything Jesus did and figured that the date he was born was of no importance by comparison.

I don't think so. I wouldn't have.

So if you're describing someone's achievements would you regard the precise date they emerged into the world as being of equal importance to what they actually did during their time here?

[shepherdsword]

The link you provided is to a website called "Truth on the Web" and an article written by Kenneth and/or Brian Hoeck who list a litany of naysayers making claims that are not supported with one single bit of actual historical evidence that supports the claims they are making, who do in fact quote discredited sources (Alexander Hislop for example) and cite references which do not even exist (the ficticious Biblical Archeology Review article for example).

Discredited? By whom? By other "believers" that mix pagan worship with Christianity? Let's see the sources.

Your saying it is true does not count, and you have not provided any evidence, only speculation and opinion. Can you provide even one citation to an actual historical text or archaeological artifact that proves that Christians adopted a pagan holiday for either Christmas or Easter?

I have posted several Christian and academic sources. Vine,Unger and even the Encyclopedia Britannica.Deal with what has already been stated before prevaricating by saying no evidence has been presented.. Discredit those sources if you can.

You misunderstand. The Christian celebration of the birth and resurrection of Jesus is not a commandment from God to be obeyed, it is a miracle from God that is cherished and honored and commemorated in a manner that is wholly Biblical, indeed, according to the most ancient of Biblical modes of celebration, feasting.

Translation: It is a vain tradition of men and I have nothing in the scripture to support it. However,I will laud my opinion as historical fact while I ignore all the evidence against it.

Matthew 28:1-10, Mark 16:1-11, Luke 24:1-12, and John 20:1-10 all testify that Jesus was resurrected on the Sunday that followed Passover. Easter is the Sunday that follows Passover, the day when Jesus was resurrected.

So exactly what pagan holiday fell on the Sunday that follows Passover?

Early Christians kept the Passover, not Easter. Notice this from the Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th edit., Vol. 8, p. 828: “There is no indication of the observance of the Easter festival in the New Testament, or in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers…The first Christians continued to observe the Jewish festivals [God’s festivals of Leviticus 23], though in a new spirit, as commemorations of events which those festivals had foreshadowed. Thus the Passover, with a new conception added to it, of Christ as the true Paschal Lamb…continued to be observed.” True origins of Easter David Pack)

“Since Bede the Venerable (De ratione temporum 1:5) the origin of the term for the feast of Christ’s Resurrection has been popularly considered to be from the Anglo-Saxon Eastre, a goddess of spring…the Old High German plural for dawn, eostarun; whence has come the German Ostern, and our English Easter” (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 5, p. 6).

“The fact that vernal festivals were general among pagan peoples no doubt had much to do with the form assumed by the Eastern festival in the Christian churches. The English term Easter is of pagan origin” (Albert Henry Newman, D.D., LL.D., A Manual of Church History, p. 299).

“On this greatest of Christian festivals, several survivals occur of ancient heathen ceremonies. To begin with, the name itself is not Christian but pagan. Ostara was the Anglo-Saxon Goddess of Spring” (Ethel L. Urlin, Festival, Holy Days, and Saints Days, p. 73).

“In Babylonia…the goddess of spring was called Ishtar. She was identified with the planet Venus, which, because…[it] rises before the Sun…or sets after it…appears to love the light [this means Venus loves the sun-god]…In Phoenecia, she became Astarte; in Greece, Eostre [related to the Greek word Eos: “dawn”], and in Germany, Ostara [this comes from the German word Ost: “east,” which is the direction of dawn]” (Englehart, p. 4).

My suggestion that you refer to your Bible was in confirmation of the mode of God's people in celebrating the great works of God.

Ok,I'll step back while you backpeddle but in examining the scripture I cannot find one verse suggesting these holidays be celebrated.

Then please provide it. You're saying so doesn't make it so.

I see quite a bit of irony here. You insult others by questioning their reading comprehension skills when yours appear selective. You understand what you want to back your opinion and attempt to discredit,without proof,anything that contradicts it.

True, the celebration of Jesus' birth was historically called "the feast of the nativity," and Easter was referred to as "the feast of the resurrection," terminology that was taken, as so much of Christianity was, from the Old Testament. That is the true roots of Christianity, Judaism, not paganism.

I don't think you understand what the "roots" of Christianity are,they have little to do with ceremonial "feasts" that are derived from pagan origins

Oh? Which church? Jerusalem? Antioch? Alexandria? Myra? Perhaps the churches in Spain? Or maybe you're talking about the Greek Orthodox? Or maybe the Eastern Orthodox? Or the Oriental churches? Gaul? Asia Minor? Which one exactly was "infiltrated with paganism"? Or are you only referring to the church at Rome? Or are you suggesting that ALL of Christendom had sold out to paganism?

Not all,there has been and always will be a faithful remnant.There will always be believers that understand that the "church" ( a misnomer for called out ones)
Is a collective group that is gathered together for one distinct purpose...to create a habitation for God through the Spirit. It is at this point that I suggest you refer to the bible and try to grasp what the church actually is.

Are you even aware of the history of these Christians you so nonchalantly condemn?

I am quite aware of the gradual infiltration of pagan practices in the "church" and the historical data that supports it. Are you?

Can you even name one of the men who lived during this period?

OH Please! Your pseudo intellectual pomposity is showing. I take it that you think that you are the only student of church history? You seem as if you are very proud of what you think you know. I suggest you take Paul at his word when he says "if any man thinks he knows anything he knows nothing as he ought to know"
Perhaps it will help to reduce your arrogance.

Or are you unaware that when you wave your hand at "the church" and accuse them of paganizing the faith that you're talking about real people? Can you name one of the "Confessors" that so many Christians had the unenviable honor of earning the title of during these years? Do you even know what a Confessor is? It's someone who has been persecuted, arrested, imprisoned and endured torture and yet refused to renounce Christ, or one who suffers death rather than recant his faith. The full list of names is known only to God, but it was such a bloody time that even the Roman historians called these edicts ordering this butchering of men, women and children "the Bloody Edicts." Many of those venerable old saints who sat at that council of Nicea bore in their scarred, twisted, broken bodies the proof of their faith. But I suppose if you are such an expert on these 4th century Christians and how they were living their lives and what doctrines they held that you can probably name at least a few of them, maybe the leaders? Without googling it. Can you name even one? One day you will meet "the church," these men and women that you have accused, face to face, so you should be very sure about your facts before you condemn them.

Don't obfuscate the real issue by some appeal to sympathy. It's a classic fallacy of logic.The church was never meant to be a hierarchical domain governed by liturgy and ceremony. This is what Jesus calls the doctrine of the Nicolatians( to conquer the laity) It was never meant to be ruled by pseudo-intellectuals after some Pharisaical order. It was meant to be governed by the head...which is Jesus
The Pharisees were guilty of mainly one thing. They taught the traditions of men as the commandments of God. A parallel I find remarkable similar here.

What you have posted is contemporary opinion

I have showed that the first century Christians didn't celibate easter but the passover. The celebration of easter was implemented a long time after that.

You have not posted one single shred of actual historical or archaelogical evidence to support your claims

Like I have already stated,dispute with facts,the data I have already presented before making such claims.Otherwise this is a canard.

that Christians were busily adopting paganism when in fact there is a letter written by the Roman Emperor Julian the Apostate which proves that in fact it was the Christians who were leading such pious lives, not given to drunkeness or greed or adultery, and lovingly ministering to the poor and the widows and orphans that pagans were being converted to Christ in such numbers that the Emperor instructed his High Priest to order the pagan priests to begin to emulate the Christians in order to try to win back the pagans to the ancient pagan gods of Rome. And that's testimony from the Romam Emperor that states exactly the opposite of what you are claiming. (Letter to Arsacius, High-Priest of Galatia, 362 A.D.) So where's your "evidence" that would contradict the testimony of the 4th century Roman Emperor? It wasn't the Christians adopting pagan customs, it was the pagans adopting the Christian cutoms, and we have the written testimony to that from the Emperor himself.

This letter has nothing to do with church practice or government. It is dealing with Julian's concern over evangelism and pagans being converted to Christ. In fact such absorption of pagan converts helped speed up the process of infiltrating the church with pagan methods. The church was never meant to be a building where people gathered to hear a one man solo act. It was meant to be a living thriving organism not an organization. We can see the result of the church failure to fulfill God's eternal purpose all around us. It is the result of pagan infiltration. I suggest you read this. I doubt you will but in any case I will post it.

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.ph...ternal+purpose

Nonsense. The only "history" you will accept is what discredits Christianity.

The pagan rituals you follow have very little to do with Christianity..as has been proven

Then I must have a faulty New Testament because my copy has pages and pages about a church at *gasp* Rome! Mentioned right there in the Scriptures.

*gasp*...you can read! I was beginning to wonder. In any case that church in "Rome" is NOT the church we see in Rome today. Despite all of it's errant claims to apostolic succession.

In Christ,
Pilgrim

???????

[shepherdsword]

Pilgrim, I apologize if my post sounds harsh. I wish you could see my face to see the expressions. I do think that Easter/Christmas is of pagan origin but I confess I end up celebrating them anyway...almost my whole family is catholic. There is usually some dispute about this in our gatherings. Maybe I have spilled some of that onto you. I sent you a friend request so I could say some things in private via PM. My tone was one of disrespect and I can see that you are a man of great study. However,I do think you are misguided(as you think of me as well)
However, we can all learn from each other.
Therefore I humble myself,my tone could be considered non Christian and it is simply unwarranted in this arena.