holidays like Easter

[Desert Snake]

This argument has been going on for ages, yet no-one can convincingly, really definitely state that it is "idol worship". Why? Because it isn't...even if symbology was incorporated from pagan holidays into Christian ones, the meanings changed as well, the symbology isn't some 'anti-Christian' idolatry.

 

[DarrenR]

I suppose you read the part where I noticed what I thougt to be other, overlooked mistakes in the 'holidays are pagan' arguments, do you have an opinion on that? Don't you find that a little strange?
It's too off topic but I encourage you to seek out the anti-holiday material and then tell me if you think it's completely kosher.

I'm not anti-holiday. I don't mind somebody's mistake but I'm going to point it out. I'm not arguing Easter is "bad", just that it's not Christian. I have no problem that people celebrate holidays. I'm just correcting an incorrect statement, not condemning holidays.

 

[Desert Snake]

I'm not anti-holiday. I don't mind somebody's mistake but I'm going to point it out. I'm not arguing Easter is "bad", just that it's not Christian. I have no problem that people celebrate holidays. I'm just correcting an incorrect statement, not condemning holidays.

That's debatable, though.
I'm still not really sure how it isn't Christian, as well///
That's an odd statement to me. Jesus celebrated Passover himself.

 

[DarrenR]

That's debatable, though.
I'm still not really sure how it isn't Christian, as well///
Thaat's an odd statement to me. Jesus celebrated Passover himself.

Because Jesus was Jewish. The dispute isn't about Passover it's about Easter. Jesus celebrating Passover doesn't mean he would approve of Easter. Easter wasn't about Jesus at first. You could easily celebrate the resurrection if that's what you believe, without doing it at Easter. Scripture says that Jesus was risen three days later which some believe was a Sunday. But that's the Sunday following Passover, not Easter Sunday.

 

[Shiranui117]

Because Jesus was Jewish. The dispute isn't about Passover it's about Easter. Jesus celebrating Passover doesn't mean he would approve of Easter. Easter wasn't about Jesus at first. You could easily celebrate the resurrection if that's what you believe, without doing it at Easter. Scripture says that Jesus was risen three days later which some believe was a Sunday. But that's the Sunday following Passover, not Easter Sunday.

Pascha is and has always been Christian and about Jesus' Resurection. The fact that there was a Germanic pagan holiday whose name came to be used for Pascha in English and German means absolutely nothing.

Also keep in mind that the modern Jewish way of reckoning the days and months isn't the way it was done in ancient times, and that's the same for the calculation of Jewish passover. Christians calculate Pascha (that's "Easter" for English-speaking non-Orthodox Christians) using a purely astronomical formula, and the Orthodox further necessitate that Easter must fall after Passover.

 

[Shiranui117]

Christians had plenty of holy days and they are well documented in the Old Testament, but Easter was not one of them.

Err... Christianity didn't exist in the Old Testament. Easter and Christianity didn't come in until the New Testament.

Um, yes. Christmas trees and gifts among others but that wasn't the point.

Christmas trees aren't idols, they're decorations. Biiiiig difference there, buddy.

 

[DarrenR]

Err... Christianity didn't exist in the Old Testament. Easter and Christianity didn't come in until the New Testament.

Christmas trees aren't idols, they're decorations. Biiiiig difference there, buddy.

Idols don't have to be a figurine of a god. Anything that takes the emphasis off the point of the day could be considered an idol. But like I said, I'm not against these holiday traditions. Celebrating with decorations is harmless but it's hardly honoring god. Christmas being fun and Christmas being a holy day are two separate issues.

I'm well aware that Christian's didn't exist prior to the New Testament. It was the Old Testament holy days that did, not the Christians themselves.

The point here was that Easter existed long before the New Testament, and it didn't have anything to do with Jesus at first. A springtime festival became Christianized as though Jesus was actually resurrected during Easter, when he wasn't.

 

[Shiranui117]

Idols don't have to be a figurine of a god. Anything that takes the emphasis off the point of the day could be considered an idol. But like I said, I'm not against these holiday traditions. Celebrating with decorations is harmless but it's hardly honoring god. Christmas being fun and Christmas being a holy day are two separate issues.

I'm well aware that Christian's didn't exist prior to the New Testament. It was the Old Testament holy days that did, not the Christians themselves.

The point here was that Easter existed long before the New Testament, and it didn't have anything to do with Jesus at first. A springtime festival became Christianized as though Jesus was actually resurrected during Easter, when he wasn't.

The Germanic pagan festival of Easter wasn't even celebrated at the same time as Pascha. It was celebrated on the vernal equinox, which is a completely different date from Pascha. He was resurrected on Pascha Sunday, and Pascha is and always has been a Christian holiday from its inception. It just so happens to share its name with the Germanic pagan festival of Easter/Ostern in English and German.

Christ was not born on December 25th, that much is clear. But He was most certainly risen on Pascha.

 

[DarrenR]

Pascha is and has always been Christian and about Jesus' Resurection. The fact that there was a Germanic pagan holiday whose name came to be used for Pascha in English and German means absolutely nothing.

Also keep in mind that the modern Jewish way of reckoning the days and months isn't the way it was done in ancient times, and that's the same for the calculation of Jewish passover. Christians calculate Pascha (that's "Easter" for English-speaking non-Orthodox Christians) using a purely astronomical formula, and the Orthodox further necessitate that Easter must fall after Passover.

Whether you call it Pascha or Easter doesn't change much about the Christian day, the point is that Easter (the pagan version) existed first. When Christians created Pascha, it was the celebration of resurrection day by all means but it was determined by the date of Passover and the pagan Easter was always a much older tradition. Christians disassociated Pascha from the Jewish customs that they no longer wanted it to be tied it, and so it got it's own date determination no longer having nearly as much to do with the calculation for Passover on the Hebrew calendar. It started as the Sunday after Passover. This makes people incorrectly assume the timing of Passover and Easter are the same when they aren't, simply because they are in some years. Seldom do non Jews know when Passover will be next year.

You are absolutely correct that the ancient Jewish calendar and the modern Jewish calendar differ. In order to popularize the day with pagans Pascha and Easter combined two customs into one day. This doesn't change that neither Pascha nor Easter (whichever you prefer to call it) have anything to do with Passover. The issue here is not that we are doing any celebrating on the "wrong" day. It's that many people confuse the differences between Passover and Easter. The pagan roots of Easter and the Christian roots of it (Pascha) are each separate matters. Yet they all got combined into one holiday and Passover got left out, when Passover is what started the Jewish religion that later got converted to a Christian religion in the first place.

 

[JayJayDee]

Christians had plenty of holy days and they are well documented in the Old Testament, but Easter was not one of them.

OT "holy days" were for the Jews, not for Christians, many of whom were from pagan gentile backgrounds. Jewish festivals only commemorated things pertinent to Jews and their history, not for Gentiles.

The Scriptures plainly state that Christ’s sacrifice “abolished . . . the Law of commandments consisting in decrees” and that God “blotted out the handwritten document against us, which consisted of decrees . . . and He has taken it out of the way by nailing it to the torture stake.”

It was the complete Mosaic Law that was “abolished,” “blotted out,” taken “out of the way.” (Eph 2:13-15; Col 2:13, 14) Consequently, the whole system of Sabbaths, be they days or years, was brought to its end with the rest of the Law by the sacrifice of Christ Jesus. This explains why Christians can esteem “one day as all others,” whether it be a sabbath or any other day, with no fear of judgment by another. (Rom 14:4-6; Col 2:16)

Paul made the following expression concerning those scrupulously observing “days and months and seasons and years”: “I fear for you, that somehow I have toiled to no purpose respecting you.” (Gal 4:10, 11)

There was no "Easter" but there was a command for Christians to observe the memorial of Christ's death. It is the only one commanded for Christians.

 

[DarrenR]

OT "holy days" were for the Jews, not for Christians, many of whom were from pagan gentile backgrounds. Jewish festivals only commemorated things pertinent to Jews and their history, not for Gentiles.

The Scriptures plainly state that Christ’s sacrifice “abolished . . . the Law of commandments consisting in decrees” and that God “blotted out the handwritten document against us, which consisted of decrees . . . and He has taken it out of the way by nailing it to the torture stake.”

It was the complete Mosaic Law that was “abolished,” “blotted out,” taken “out of the way.” (Eph 2:13-15; Col 2:13, 14) Consequently, the whole system of Sabbaths, be they days or years, was brought to its end with the rest of the Law by the sacrifice of Christ Jesus. This explains why Christians can esteem “one day as all others,” whether it be a sabbath or any other day, with no fear of judgment by another. (Rom 14:4-6; Col 2:16)

Paul made the following expression concerning those scrupulously observing “days and months and seasons and years”: “I fear for you, that somehow I have toiled to no purpose respecting you.” (Gal 4:10, 11)

There was no "Easter" but there was a command for Christians to observe the memorial of Christ's death? It is the only one commanded for Christians.

Holy days were for anybody who worshiped the god of Israel. The Gentiles didn't follow them of course but every Gentile did not become "Christian". Most remained pagan.

Christians believe Christ's sacrifice abolished the old law. No doubt about that. That's what Christian's believe, it's not what everybody believes. Firstly scripture does not state the old law has been abolished as plainly as Christians claim, but secondly and more importantly if you aren't Christian, then you don't consider the New Testament scripture on the same level. Judaism doesn't follow the New Testament because they don't believe Jesus was the messiah. Muslims have scripture called the Koran, but quoting the Koran to a non Muslim is as pointless as quoting the New Testament to a non Christian. I'm neither Christian, Judiast or Muslim, but I respect the differences. There is no right or wrong here because all three consider "scripture" to be different things which is why I concentrate on the history of the text and not simply what the text says. Quoting scripture doesn't make it scripture if you aren't from a faith that considers it scripture.

Yet even in the New Testament there is no command to honor the memorial of Christ's death. There is history of what we call the Last Supper, but no command to follow it an an annual basis. Even if there were today's Easter honor's the resurrection, not his death. To honor his death, Jehovah Witness are the only group to get the date right. (I'm not JW either but I respect they at least get the date right)

I don't think getting the date right is all that important, but Easter doesn't even come close to getting the date right if you are referring to anything related to Jesus. The first Sunday following the first full moon after the vernal equinox has nothing to do with when Passover fell. It calculates springtime not a resurrection's anniversary. Hence the pagan roots of Easter continue to this day, whether you have an Easter egg hunt or not.

Passover, the original festival why Jesus was in Jerusalem in the first place is what should continue to be honored. Christians, Judiasts and Muslims all have reason to continue it. Even if Christians want to continue believing that a new covenant supersedes an old one that doesn't mean don't do anything that was ever mentioned in the original scriptures.

Personally I'm not so easily convinced that the original Hebrew Scriptures should be so easily written off. It was the only scripture for a long time before a New Testament was written and if that law were "temporary" I think it would have mentioned that small little fact. While it's easy for Christians to interpret the New Testament as "the new law" it's much more difficult to interpret the Old Testament as "temporary law".

 

[JayJayDee]

Holy days were for anybody who worshiped the god of Israel. The Gentiles didn't follow them of course but every Gentile did not become "Christian". Most remained pagan.

Historically, pagans (Gentiles) who became Christians did not have to keep the law. The circumcision issue that arose in the first century, was proof of this. Acts 15 relates the outcome of a decision made by the governing body in Jerusalem concerning the things that gentile brothers needed to do.... "and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things: to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!” (Acts 15:28, 29) There was no mention of keeping the law, including the Sabbath or circumcision, which were very important to Jews, but not to Gentiles.

As history also demonstrates, pagans who became part of Christendom (in the later centuries) brought a lot of their former religious beliefs and customs with them, creating a fusion that is forbidden in scripture, both OT and NT. (Deut 18:9-12; 2 Cor 6;14-18)

Christians believe Christ's sacrifice abolished the old law. No doubt about that. That's what Christian's believe, it's not what everybody believes.

And isn't this what we all have to make our choices about?
What constitutes God's law for all of us regardless of what label we wear? It isn't what we choose to believe that makes something the truth....it is what God says.

Firstly scripture does not state the old law has been abolished as plainly as Christians claim, but secondly and more importantly if you aren't Christian, then you don't consider the New Testament scripture on the same level.

Of his Jewish countrymen Paul wrote..."Brothers, the goodwill of my heart and my supplication to God for them are indeed for their salvation. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to accurate knowledge. For because of not knowing the righteousness of God but seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the Law, so that everyone exercising faith may have righteousness." (Romans 10:1-4)

Having a zeal for God, if it is misguided, is futile, no matter whether we profess Christianity, Judaism or Islam.

Judaism doesn't follow the New Testament because they don't believe Jesus was the messiah.

And The scriptures predicted this very thing. Only a remnant (Rom 9:27) responded to the Christian message and became the foundation of a "royal priesthood and a holy nation". Jews are still waiting for Messiah's first appearance, whereas Christians are waiting for his second and final coming to judge the world. Even then, not all are acceptable (Matt 7:21-23)

Not believing in him, does not make him go away, nor does ignorance cancel out the permanence of the judgment. (2 Thess 1:6-9)

Muslims have scripture called the Koran, but quoting the Koran to a non Muslim is as pointless as quoting the New Testament to a non Christian.

The Islamic faith is somewhere in the middle, but like Judaism, zeal for God, if it is based upon a wrong premise, gained from the wrong teachers, will not save anyone.
All these religions pray to God (whomever they perceive him to be) with hands dripping in blood. Jesus taught peace and love. (John 13:34, 35)

I'm neither Christian, Judiast or Muslim, but I respect the differences. There is no right or wrong here because all three consider "scripture" to be different things which is why I concentrate on the history of the text and not simply what the text says. Quoting scripture doesn't make it scripture if you aren't from a faith that considers it scripture.

That is entirely your choice. God provides his word to guide his people. "By their fruits" Jesus said we would identify God's true worshippers. They will be the ones living in peace with their neighbors, no matter whether their government identifies someone of another nation as an enemy or not. We will seek peace as far as it depends upon us. (Rom 12:17-21) We refuse to participate in war. (Isa 2:2-4)

Yet even in the New Testament there is no command to honor the memorial of Christ's death. There is history of what we call the Last Supper, but no command to follow it an an annual basis.

Paul wrote..."For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night on which he was going to be betrayed took a loaf, and after giving thanks, he broke it and said: “This means my body, which is in your behalf. Keep doing this in remembrance of me.” He did the same with the cup also, after they had the evening meal, saying: “This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood. Keep doing this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me. For whenever you eat this loaf and drink this cup, you keep proclaiming the death of the Lord, until he comes.” (1 Corinthians 11:23-26)

Since this inauguration of the new covenant replaced the old covenant with its Passover celebration, Jesus as the true Passover Lamb, was asking that his death be commemorated in the same manner....yearly.

 

[JayJayDee]

Even if there were today's Easter honor's the resurrection, not his death. To honor his death, Jehovah Witness are the only group to get the date right. (I'm not JW either but I respect they at least get the date right)

Yes, since the Passover was celebrated on a specific date, so the memorial of Christ's death was to be celebrated on a specific date, recorded for us in the Bible.

I don't think getting the date right is all that important, but Easter doesn't even come close to getting the date right if you are referring to anything related to Jesus.

The date was very important when commemorating the Passover, so I believe it is also important for Christians to not only get the date right, but not to introduce pagan trappings of a completely different festival designed to honor a false deity. This violates God's commands. He tolerates no false worship.

The first Sunday following the first full moon after the vernal equinox has nothing to do with when Passover fell. It calculates springtime not a resurrection's anniversary. Hence the pagan roots of Easter continue to this day, whether you have an Easter egg hunt or not.

You have no argument from me on this.

Passover, the original festival why Jesus was in Jerusalem in the first place is what should continue to be honored. Christians, Judiasts and Muslims all have reason to continue it.

The scriptures disagree. The Passover was exclusively Jewish, commemorating their release from Egypt as the last of the ten plagues was wrought on a stubborn Pharaoh, who finally freed them from bondage. It has no meaning for Christians or Muslims in that context.

Even if Christians want to continue believing that a new covenant supersedes an old one that doesn't mean don't do anything that was ever mentioned in the original scriptures.

The scriptures themselves confirm that the old was replaced. It was foretold even in the OT scriptures.

“‘Look! There are days coming,’ is the utterance of Jehovah, ‘and I will conclude with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant; not one like the covenant that I concluded with their forefathers in the day of my taking hold of their hand to bring them forth out of the land of Egypt, “which covenant of mine they themselves broke, although I myself had husbandly ownership of them,” is the utterance of Jehovah.’ ‘For this is the covenant that I shall conclude with the house of Israel after those days,’ is the utterance of Jehovah. ‘I will put my law within them, and in their heart I shall write it. And I will become their God, and they themselves will become my people.’” (Jeremiah 31:31-33)

Personally I'm not so easily convinced that the original Hebrew Scriptures should be so easily written off. It was the only scripture for a long time before a New Testament was written and if that law were "temporary" I think it would have mentioned that small little fact.

No no....there was nothing about the law that was temporary. Every single thing that the law required prefigured something. It was this scripture to which Paul referred in 2 Tim 3:16, 17. The moral laws and the hygiene laws as well as the requirements for sacrifice all pictured something everlasting. The principles of the law were summed up in the law of love. All the blood sacrifices pictured the blood of Christ as the ultimate sacrifice "once for all time", never needing to be repeated.

While it's easy for Christians to interpret the New Testament as "the new law" it's much more difficult to interpret the Old Testament as "temporary law".

Jesus came to give us new commandments, but not one of them is really new. All of the new commands are expansions of what had already been taught by the old law. Jesus took the basic principles of the law and gave them a new expression is all.

For example....Jesus said....
“You heard that it was said: ‘You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy,’” “However, I say to you: Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those who persecute you, so that you may prove yourselves sons of your Father who is in the heavens.” (Matt. 5:43-45) The apostle Paul made a similar point when he wrote: “Take into consideration what is fine from the viewpoint of all men. If possible, as far as it depends on you, be peaceable with all men. Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but yield place to the wrath; If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink......Do not let yourself be conquered by the evil, but keep conquering the evil with the good.” (Rom. 12:18-21; Prov. 25:21)

This is why true Christians can be identified by this kind of love. You don't find it in Judaism, Christendom or Islam. Where enemies are often dealt with in the violence and the bloodshed of war.