Easter

[Bengalzona]

(03-28-2016, 10:59 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yup. It seems rather silly to me. They went with something that makes it reliant on something similar to what the Jewish calendar is based on, but because they want to make sure it is understood Christians are not Jews, they made it independent of the Jewish calendar, even though we know the events took place during Passover.

Politics from the early church.

Linking the annual holiday to the Passover (which the events in the Bible are clearly linked) would demonstrate and emphasize the link between Judaism and Christianity. This was something the early church spend literally hundreds of years (325AD to modern times) trying to downplay.

The simple fact is that Jesus and all of the disciples were Jews. They called themselves Jews. They associated with Jewish laws and customs. Until the time of Paul, nearly every believer in Jesus' divine origins would have called themselves a Jew. Jews who did not believe in the divinity of Christ at the time looked upon the followers of Christ as a sect, similar to the way Christians today look at Mormons or Shakers. Because the followers of Christ were generally rejected among mainline Judaism at the time (Judaism was already broken into three main sects: the Sadducees, the Pharisees, and the Essenes. They weren't real welcoming to newer, smaller sects.), the followers of Christ began calling themselves "the believers" first.

The word "Christian" didn't appear until decades after Jesus' death (Acts 11:26), possibly coined by Paul or Barnabas. And it was around the time of the name change that the church began emphasizing evangelizing to the gentiles at Antioch. The two events, the name change and evangelizing to gentiles, are most certainly related. Including non-Jews into the fold without requiring them to be circumcised caused a major argument between Paul and Peter (Peter was the de facto head of the church at that time). I suspect that, as a practical matter of growing a new religion, some church leaders saw that growth would be limited if they stuck solely to converting other Jews. Paul, a Jew also, was the one responsible for re-branding the product. Paul would clearly have done well on Madison Avenue if he were alive today.

After the church "took over" the Roman Empire, there was a greater emphasis on separating from its Jewish traditions and history. People around this time didn't like Jews. They were seen as vagabonds (at a time when very few people moved more than a mile or two from where they were born) and were mistrusted. They settled on the outskirts of towns, lived in insulated communities and plied trades that others did not want (money lending, inter-city commerce and trade, etc.). These were not jobs which were appreciated or respected in Dark Age Europe.

The truth is, the Jews had no other choices. The majority were forced into exile and spread throughout the world. Everywhere they arrived, they were the 'new arrivals' and were treated as such by being forced to take jobs no one else wanted (our society is no different today, eh). But the unique thing about the Jewish people is that they accepted and excelled at these jobs. They became experts at banking, jewelry making, commerce and trade, the law, etc., occupations which modern society is built upon. And the more they succeeded, the more the societies around them depended upon them, but also hated them at the same time. Interestingly enough, that resentment says more about them than it did (does) about the Jews.

The Christian church felt obliged to take advantage of this resentment through occasional inquisitions, pogroms, etc. But despite this, the church could never condone the outright holocaust of Jews. This was due to a small passage in the Book of Revelations which says that during the apocalypse, a number of Jews would see Christ and convert. The church literally felt that they needed to keep a certain number of Jews alive and as practicing Jews in order for this prophecy to be fulfilled (interestingly enough, there is a similar passage in the Koran involving Muslims and Christians). Holocaust of the Jews would have to wait for another regime with no religous ties: the Nazis.

Today, there is more of an effort among Christians to learn about the Jewish roots of their religion. Which makes sense, seeing as you cannot even begin to understand the New Testament until you have a working understanding of the Old Testament and you cannot understand the Old Testament until you have a working understanding of early Judaism. This lack of understanding has caused more misinterpretation of Christian scripture and doctrine than anything else.

[*michaelsean*]

Ah'd sooner admit I come from a g'rilla than from the Jews.

[Belsnickel]

(03-28-2016, 01:29 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Today, there is more of an effort among Christians to learn about the Jewish roots of their religion. Which makes sense, seeing as you cannot even begin to understand the New Testament until you have a working understanding of the Old Testament and you cannot understand the Old Testament until you have a working understanding of early Judaism. This lack of understanding has caused more misinterpretation of Christian scripture and doctrine than anything else.

Solid post overall, I just didn't want to quote the whole thing. I'm aware of the history, but it's always nice to see others recognizing this sort of thing. To this last part, agree entirely. I have said in a thread here before that we have to have both the OT and the NT because without the OT, we have no context, no understanding for the NT. Unfortunately, this went into a back and forth that was pointless, but I'm happy to see someone else saying this. The OT is not there for those that are Christians, especially those without any Jewish heritage, to use for laws to follow and all of that. The OT is there for us to understand the NT.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-26-2016, 07:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Let me preface this by saying that I agree this is some crazy, illogical shit. I have my own reasons for having faith in it, and that is what faith is really all about: believing in crazy, illogical shit when you really can't prove it.

Easter is arguably the most important of holidays for Christendom. The entire premise of Christianity is that Jesus died for us, descended to the dead, rose on the third day, ascended into heaven, and through his sacrifice we receive the grace of God and are forgiven of our sins. So Easter, the day he rose, is of extreme importance. Now, I have just started being active in my faith again. I have never done all of the Lent and Holy Week things, but I enjoy Easter because of what it represents. Lunch or dinner with family after church. Its a good time. The chocolate is pretty awesome, too.

Also, celebrations of Eostre are a good time, too. Lots of drink, dancing, and sex.

Frohe Ostern Allen.

Doesn't Uhtred like to rub Eostre in everyone's face?  

[Belsnickel]

(03-28-2016, 01:39 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Doesn't Uhtred like to rub Eostre in everyone's face?  

Well, of course he does. I used to be a part of the neo-Pagan movement and followed the more Germanic path. As such, Eostre's festival was a major deal. She has other names, that being the Old English version and the most well known thanks to the coopting of the name for the Paschal season.

[Vas Deferens]

(03-28-2016, 01:34 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Ah'd sooner admit I come from a  g'rilla than from the Jews.

wow dude.  thats intense.

[Bengalzona]

(03-28-2016, 01:34 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Ah'd sooner admit I come from a  g'rilla than from the Jews.

You probably don't come from Jews, but your religion does.

And isn't it better to have a religion that comes from Jews rather than from g'rillas?

[Bengalzona]

(03-28-2016, 02:12 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, of course he does. I used to be a part of the neo-Pagan movement and followed the more Germanic path. As such, Eostre's festival was a major deal. She has other names, that being the Old English version and the most well known thanks to the coopting of the name for the Paschal season.

What?!?!?

Easter wasn't named after Esther?!?!?!?

[Vas Deferens]

(03-28-2016, 02:16 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: You probably don't come from Jews, but your religion does.

And isn't it better to have a religion that comes from Jews rather than from g'rillas?

We all come from g'rillas.  Guess there's a fork in that tree some like to hang their hat on.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-28-2016, 02:16 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: You probably don't come from Jews, but your religion does.

And isn't it better to have a religion that comes from Jews rather than from g'rillas?

Don't be double talkin' me with your fancy "logic".  I ain't descended from no g'rilla and I ain't praying to nothin' that once was a Jew no how.Jesus was a Christian. Fer Chris' sake his last name was Christ.

[fredtoast]

I thought the word "Easter" was Aramaic for "zombie".

[Bengalzona]

(03-28-2016, 02:22 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Don't be double talkin' me with your fancy "logic".  I ain't descended from no g'rilla and I ain't praying to nothin' that once was a Jew no how.Jesus was a Christian.  Fer Chris' sake his last name was Christ.

That is correct, sir: "Jesus H. Christ"!

(a.k.a. Jesus "*****" Christ when you drop the hammer on your toe)

[Rotobeast]

Always found this interesting.....

http://www.crosswalk.com/special-coverage/christmas-and-advent/was-jesus-really-born-on-dec-25.html

Quote:Was Jesus Really Born on Dec. 25?
Angie Mosteller
CelebratingHolidays.com


[*]2011, 6 Dec









I have long heard that our modern date for Christmas, Dec. 25, was chosen in an effort to “Christianize” a pagan holiday. Needless to say, I was surprised to learn the true history of how this date was selected.
Though the gospels of Matthew and Luke both give an account of Christ’s birth, neither one provides a date for this great event. Though it may sound strange to our modern minds, it is likely that early Christians did not place any particular value on birthdays. This makes it hard to conclude when Jesus was really born.
It was not until the third century that various pockets of Christians began to show interest in the date of Christ’s birth, and it would take another century for the Church to begin celebrating it with some uniformity.
In regard to the chronology of Christ’s life, Early Church leaders were primarily concerned with determining the date of his death in order to establish the celebration of his resurrection (Easter). Since the Bible places Christ’s death at the time of the Jewish Passover, the dating should have been easy. However, reconciling the Jewish lunar calendar (which has 12 months of 30 days each and adds an extra “month” every third year) with Greek and Roman calendars proved to be difficult.
After much debate, the Eastern Church (which was using a Greek calendar) settled on April 6th, and the Western Church (which was using a Roman calendar) settled on March 25th as the date of Christ’s death. As we know, with time, the Western date prevailed and helped to determine the Sunday on which to celebrate Easter.


Interestingly, according to the Roman calendar, March 25th was also the spring Equinox, a day that symbolized the “rebirth of the earth” and that some Christians believed marked the first day of creation. Believers saw significance in the symbolism of Christ’s death on the anniversary of creation, since it was Christ’s redemptive death that allowed creation to be made new.
By the third century, it appears that some Christians had started celebrating Christ’s birth, as well as his death, on March 25th, because in a book called On Computing the Date of Easter, the author makes a case against this day as Christ’s birthday.
So why were Christians celebrating Christ’s birth and death on the same day? Likely, an ancient Jewish tradition of “integral age” or “whole year theory” influenced this practice. It is a belief that the life of a Jewish prophet began and ended on the same day. A third century Christian, Sextus Julius Africanus, added an interesting component to this theory. He argued that Christ’s life began not at birth but at conception. His case proves to be of particular relevance, because if Christ was conceived on March 25th, he would have been born 9 months later on December 25th, the date on which our discussion is focused.
Interestingly, the Church later recognized March 25th as the Annunciation (the date that Gabriel appeared to Mary to announce the birth of Christ and also believed to be the moment of conception (notice the pro-life implications) and December 25th as the birthday of Christ. Most Christians assume that the Annunciation was determined by taking the date of Christmas and counting back nine months. On the contrary, it was probably the reverse.
Though early Christian leaders made an effort to date Christ’s birth with thoughtful consideration, bear in mind that Jesus was born in a period when time was referred to in terms of the “reign of so-and-so” and when both nature and symbolism played a role in dating significant events. St. Jerome (340-420 AD), an early church scholar, appealed to this symbolism to defend December 25 as the date of the Nativity: “Even nature is in agreement with our claim, for the whole world itself bears witness to our statement. Up to this day, darkness increases; from this day on, it decreases; light increases, darkness decreases.”1
If the dating of Christmas was influenced at all by pagan celebrations, the most likely candidate was a holiday established in 274 AD by the Roman Emperor Aurelian (around 214-275 AD) called Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, “The Birth of the Unconquered Sun,” on December 25. However, it is equally possible that Aurelian was attempting to co-opt a date that already had significance for believers. According to history professor William Tighe, “The date had no religious significance in the Roman pagan festal calendar before Aurelian’s time, nor did the sun play a prominent role in Rome before him.”2
 By the time of Aurelian’s reign, it appears that the god Mithras (originally a Persian deity who was said to be either the son of the sun or the companion of the sun) was earning popularity among traveling Roman soldiers. Aurelian decided to seize on an opportunity to bring a monotheistic cult to the Roman Empire, and it is likely that his motivation was to compete with Christianity – a growing monotheistic religion that he saw as a threat to the empire.3
The first clear record of Christ’s birth on December 25 was not until 336 AD, but it is possible that the church had accepted the date long before and that it was already common knowledge. Regardless, even if the dating of Christ’s birth was owed in part to the pagan holiday, “The Birthday of the Unconquered Sun,” the influence was probably only secondary. It appears that the primary goal of the Church was to determine an appropriate date — one that Christians expected to be rich in symbolism. If this date, December 25, also happened to give the Church a sacred feast with which to counter pagan celebrations, then it was arguably the best possible choice for the day on which to honor Christ’s birth.
1 Witvliet, John D. and Vroege, David. Proclaiming the Christmas Gospel, Ancient Sermons and Hymns for Contemporary Christian Inspiration. Sermon by St. Jerome, Baker Books, 2004, p. 26.
2 Tighe, William. Calculating Christmas. Touchstone Journal, December 2003 issue.
3 Kelly, Joseph. The Origins of Christmas. Liturgical Press, 2004, p. 63.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-28-2016, 10:00 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Always found this interesting.....

http://www.crosswalk.com/special-coverage/christmas-and-advent/was-jesus-really-born-on-dec-25.html

Jesus wasn't born 12/25.  His birth didn't occur during the winter.  If he was conceived on 3/25, Mary's due date would have been 12/16.

http://www.medcalc.com/pregnancy.html

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-28-2016, 10:40 AM)tigerseye Wrote: Easter/The resurrection are central and significant to Christianity and it shouldn't be mocked.

Why?

[Vlad]

(03-30-2016, 12:56 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Why?

 Perhaps out of respect. The same reason why none of your kind will never mock Islam.

[Bengalzona]

(03-30-2016, 08:43 PM)Vlad Wrote:  Perhaps out of respect. The same reason why none of your kind will never mock Islam.

Let's chill on the "your kind" talk.

You can make the same point by saying "The same reason why (liberals/atheists/whatever) will never mock Islam." without making the post directly referencing someone else. That is what we mean by personal.

I've chosen to use this as an example and a teachable moment for everyone else rather than banning. Use the warning wisely.

[GMDino]

(03-30-2016, 08:43 PM)Vlad Wrote:  Perhaps out of respect. The same reason why none of your kind will never mock Islam.

Honestly though I haven't seen much int he way of "mocking".  The OP stated his opinion and then asked for others.  A couple people feel that is being disrespectful...I don't see it.

As to Islam...I don't know as much about it as I was raised Catholic. So I can speak on it.

[Bengalzona]

Personally, I think Ramadan is a great holiday for dropping napalm on ISIL.

[Rotobeast]

(03-30-2016, 08:57 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Let's chill on the "your kind" talk.

You can make the same point by saying "The same reason why (liberals/atheists/whatever) will never mock Islam." without making the post directly referencing someone else. That is what we mean by personal.

I've chosen to use this as an example and a teachable moment for everyone else rather than banning. Use the warning wisely.

I'm assuming "your ilk", shall be off the table as well ?
It was popular for a while.