Christians cancel christmas

[Juan Albion]

Well said that man. 'Easter' isn't a Christian festival either - in fact it's not even a Christian word and the date is picked on a distinctly pagan basis of a certain number of full moons.

Here we go again.

You don't think the date of Easter is related in some way to the date of Passover? Hmmm? Which is perhaps why in most European languages, the word for Easter is based on the word 'Passover.'

Don't you just love the way some people are quite happy to display their ignorance in public?

The origins are irrelevant, it's what individuals make of it that counts.

You're not wrong there though.

 

[Rangdo]

It's EITHER 'common knowledge' or 'few people realise' - it can't be both

Sorry, the link text was cut and pasted from the website. I didn't read it. What I mean is that none of my family and friends celebrate it as a religious festival. I've just assumed for a long time that people realise that it isn't one.

 

[Juan Albion]

I don't believe in Jebus.

Not sure who this Jebus guy is, but if you mean Jesus, then don't worry, he believes in you...

 

[Trufflehound]

Jesus saves...

But Claridge scores from the rebound.

 

[CHAPPERS]

Not sure who this Jebus guy is, but if you mean Jesus, then don't worry, he believes in you...

At least someone does.

 

[Biscuit]

Jesus saves...

But Claridge scores from the rebound.

 

[Brovion]

.... Don't you just love the way some people are quite happy to display their ignorance in public?

What like you just have? The Passover festival was used initially, that much is true. However there was no consensus in the early church when to celebrate Easter. The early Christians had followed the Jewish calendar and celebrated the resurrection on the Passover (Pascha), regardless of the day of the week. The Council of Nicea in 325 set the date as the first Sunday after Passover. There was then a lot of mucking about and arguing (I don't know all the details) but it was eventually decided to set Easter as the first Sunday after the first full moon after Passover (the Paschal Moon) or after the nominal date of the vernal (spring) equinox. One of the reason for this was because, like Christmas, the early Christians were adapting pagan festivals for their own use.

PS - The Eastern Orthodox churches still don't necessarily celebrate Easter on the same day as Western churches.

PPS - Oh and the word 'Easter' is derived from 'Eostre' an Anglo-Saxon goddess. She represented the re-birth of the world in Spring.

 

[Juan Albion]

What like you just have? The Passover festival was used initially, that much is true. However there was no consensus in the early church when to celebrate Easter. The early Christians had followed the Jewish calendar and celebrated the resurrection on the Passover (Pascha), regardless of the day of the week. The Council of Nicea in 325 set the date as the first Sunday after Passover. There was then a lot of mucking about and arguing (I don't know all the details) but it was eventually decided to set Easter as the first Sunday after the first full moon after Passover (the Paschal Moon) or after the nominal date of the vernal (spring) equinox.

But come on, you wrote "the date is picked on a distinctly pagan basis of a certain number of full moons." How can Passover be "a distinctly pagan basis"? All Christians agree that the first 'Easter' occurred at the time of Passover. There has been disagreement on when that should be, yes, as there has with many things datewise in a world where confusion was the norm. What you have written is simply an account of how the churches tried to standardize the date.

Perhaps you would explain to us where you see the 'pagan' in the dating of Easter, because that was your word...

 

[readingstockport]

Easter, sometimes also called erastide, is a pagan festival that far, far pre-dates christianity.

Where do you see the passover relating to that. It is a festival which was hijacked in the west, like so many others, by the early christian church in order to give their new religion some form of credibilty. Largely because the people refused to stop celebrating their festival despite the church trying to force them to, so they subsumed it into their faith. It has nothing to with christianity other than it fits in with their beliefs.

Nothing wrong with that IMHO but it aint a christian festival.

 

[Juan Albion]

Easter, sometimes also called erastide, is a pagan festival that far, far pre-dates christianity.

Where do you see the passover relating to that. It is a festival which was hijacked in the west, like so many others, by the early christian church in order to give their new religion some form of credibilty. Largely because the people refused to stop celebrating their festival despite the church trying to force them to, so they subsumed it into their faith. It has nothing to with christianity other than it fits in with their beliefs.

Nothing wrong with that IMHO but it aint a christian festival.

 

[CHAPPERS]

Is the Easter Bunny and Pagan or a Christian?

 

[Hungry Joe]

I don't care what you call it as long as I get lots of eggs.

 

[Lokki 7]

This is what pisses me off about religon. My first school was a convant. Nuns taught me the way of the world, and if you crossed them you were straight off to hell. I was scared shitless.
Now all this is fine if what they are teaching you is gods word, but they're not. Christ (if he ever existed) was NOT born on 25th Dec. The nuns lied. Now if they can lie about something as central and fundamental as this, how can you believe anything they say? Sure I accept as an adult it is the meaning of Christmas that is more important, but why not start of with the truth in the first place?
The more you study the Bible the more inconsistent it becomes. Even little things like names annoy me. There was no one in that part of the world at that time called Mark for example. If that is the case, why do we have a gospel by Mark? If you can change the dudes name then what else has been changed to suit the audience?
Sorry, rant over. Carry on.

 

[looney]

Re: Re: Christians cancel christmas

 

[Juan Albion]

Christ (if he ever existed) was NOT born on 25th Dec. The nuns lied.

I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that Dec 25th was the exact day. We simply don't know the exact day.

There was no one in that part of the world at that time called Mark for example. If that is the case, why do we have a gospel by Mark? If you can change the dudes name then what else has been changed to suit the audience?

What an utterly bizarre thing to say.

 

[Brovion]

....Perhaps you would explain to us where you see the 'pagan' in the dating of Easter, because that was your word...

OK I see it as 'Pagan' inasmuch as, like Christmas, there were Pagan festival(s) already in existence at about that time that the clever early Christians just adapted as opposed to trying to ban outright. For the early Celtic church in Britain this was especially true and adapting local spring festivals (and the nomenclature, timing and symbols) undoubtedly won them more British followers than they would have got by slavishly adhering to a foreign timetable.

However I do think you've spectacularly missed my original point. Did you actually read my first post and who I was quoting? This thread started as one of those sporadic NSC 'bash the believers' threads and I was agreeing with Percy Tantrums that the origin of the Christmas (and by extension Easter) festivals is irrelevant. Who cares where they came from and how they evolved? We use them to celebrate the birth of Jesus and His Resurrection, we have to try and keep the religious element in Christmas to stop it becoming, well 'Winterval'.

..... unless of course you do believe that Jesus really WAS born on the 25th December and that Christmas and Easter were NOT superimposed over existing pagan festivals?

 

[Lokki 7]

OK. Lets put it another way. If you were Italian, you would call the chap Marco. He wasn't called Mark and Marco at the same time was he, so one (if not both) must be wrong.

 

[readingstockport]

What an utterly bizarre thing to say.

What? Any more bizarre than believing the son ofa supernatural being known as god was born to a poor carpenter in the middle east?

One is a fairly accurate statement of facts regarding names at the time, one is a purely subjective statement of faith for which there is no evidence, empirical or otherwise, at all.

If jesus was so important why is it that the contemporary roman historians ignore his existance?

 

[Juan Albion]

OK I see it as 'Pagan' inasmuch as, like Christmas, there were Pagan festival(s) already in existence at about that time that the clever early Christians just adapted as opposed to trying to ban outright. For the early Celtic church in Britain this was especially true and adapting local spring festivals (and the nomenclature, timing and symbols) undoubtedly won them more British followers than they would have got by slavishly adhering to a foreign timetable.

So you are saying that it is easier for a small organisation struggling just to establish itself to do so by going head-to-head with a major existing event? Hmmmm... Yes, if I was to organise a new horserace, I'd pick the day of the Grand National.

However I do think you've spectacularly missed my original point. Did you actually read my first post and who I was quoting?

Yes, you said "the date [of Easter] is picked on a distinctly pagan basis." That is what I took issue with. And now you are trying to change the subject because that simply isn't true. And if you actually read my post, you would see that a) I very carefully used the 'Quote' facility to make it clear what point I was taking issue with; and b) in the same way I then agreed with you on your comment that "The origins are irrelevant, it's what individuals make of it that counts."

... unless of course you do believe that Jesus really WAS born on the 25th December

Read my last post.

and that Christmas and Easter were NOT superimposed over existing pagan festivals?

I think I've made it perfectly clear that I do not agree that Easter was deliberately superimposed over existing pagan festivals. Isn't that what we are disagreeing about in the first place?

Which is why I'm still waiting for you to support your claim that "the date [of Easter] is picked on a distinctly pagan basis."

 

[Lokki 7]

I love NSC