What Does Passover/Easter Holyday/Holiday Mean To You?

[2ndpillar]

The early Christian Church celebrated Easter as early as the 2nd century AD, although the precise date and manner of celebration varied among different Christian communities.

There was a HUGE debate in the early church whether it should be observed during the Jewish Passover, or whether the Church should break ties with Judaism and choose a fixed day on the Julian calendar. Tertullian, in his treatise "On the Resurrection of the Flesh," (208-212 CE) argues for the resurrection of Jesus as the central event of Easter, regardless of its timing relative to Passover.

The modern figuring was indeed decided at Nicea, but not by Constantine. The only people who had a vote at Nicea were the Christian bishops.

Constantine convened and presided over the Council of Nicaea. All he wanted was a unified decision, to unify his empire. As for your "Christian" bishops, many of them couldn't read or write. The bishop of Rome didn't even come, he probably had gout and stayed at home, and sent some scribes instead. As for Easter, after Hadrian destroyed Jerusalem in 135 A.D. , the Jewish traditions, such as Passover, were forbidden. Anyone who wanted to keep their heads, accepted Easter, which is associated with sun god worship. Did Early Christians Celebrate Easter?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

When you go to "confession", the priest gives you a penance. And the penance is to pray " Hail Mary". Mary is dead, and buried, in spite of the pope saying she went to heaven. As for Catechism, I am sure, you, as a Jew from southern California, you know more than I do, as I only went to Catechism class. What will you do when all of your "Christian" friends fall off the earth into the sea with regard to the earthquake of (Rev 16:18-20)? The only ones' to "escape" the "day of the LORD" (Joel 2:31-32) are those in Jerusalem and on Mount Zion.

I'm am not all that familiar with confession, being a Jew. But this is what I have learned the long way around:
A penance is meant to help the person change their life, to assist them in turning from their sin and return to communion with God. It can be anything from "return the money you stole" to "take the neighbor you gossiped with out to lunch." Prayers such as the Our Father and Hail Mary are often given because prayer helps to restore one's relationship with God.

While I personally agree with you that Mary is dead, Catholics don't think that way. They kind of have this impression that the Church, the "body of Christ, is not only all those believers here on earth, but also in heaven. They speak with the saints asking for prayer the same way that they might speak to you or me and ask for prayer. They call this the "communion of saints" (again, note the Creed). Prayers to Mary have to be viewed within this framework.

I have also learned that the recited prayers of the rosary are not its core. The CORE seems to be these "Mysteries"--meditations on different events in the life of Jesus. If that's true, the depiction of the Rosary as being Mary centered would be mistaken. It would properly be said to be about Jesus.

Not trying to toot my horn here, but if I have actually read the Catechism, and you haven't, then yeah, I agree with you that I likely know more about Catholicism.

Remember that as a Jew, Revelation means absolutely nothing to me. It's no different than the Vedas, or Book of Mormon, or the Quran. Thus, I am not personally concerned with ANYTHING it says.

I discuss Catholicism, not because I think it is correct, but simply because I find religion interesting, and care greatly that its theology and history not be butchered by well intentioned but ignorant people with agendas. After all, I would not want anyone misrepresenting Judaism, so I'm simply applying the Golden Rule here.

 

[2ndpillar]

Nope. Not even a little bit. The Christian church at that time was completely independent of the Roman government.

Strange, as Constantine sent bishops like Athanasius and followers of Arius, into exile for their Arian and anti-Arian views. He also appointed bishops. My suggestion would be to stay away from "Christian" faux historians.

Athanasius: 5-time exile

blogs.blueletterbible.org

Christianity - Church, Empire, Alliance | Britannica

Christianity - Church, Empire, Alliance: Constantine the Great, declared emperor at York, Britain (306), converted to Christianity, convened the Council of Arles (314), became sole emperor (324), virtually presided over the ecumenical Council of Nicaea (325), founded the city of Constantinople...

www.britannica.com

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Constantine convened and presided over the Council of Nicaea. All he wanted was a unified decision, to unify his empire.

I agree. He called for the bishops to hold it, because a unified church meant a more stable empire as you said. He did not run the show. He didn't even have a vote. Ultimately, it proclaimed as orthodoxy an idea that Constantine found unfavorable, so he certainly didn't get "his way."

As for your "Christian" bishops, many of them couldn't read or write.

I couldn't say for sure, but I seriously doubt they became Bishops without the ability to read the sacred texts.

The bishop of Rome didn't even come, he probably had gout and stayed at home, and sent some scribes instead.

That is correct, the Bishop of Rome did not attend. It is considered an ecumenical council because bishops came from all around the world to participate, not because EVERY bishop attended. Catholicism considers these councils to be guided by the holy spirit and infallible in their teachings on faith and morals. Do I agree with that? I find the idea of infallibility to be absurd. Nevertheless that is what Catholicism teaches.

As for Easter, after Hadrian destroyed Jerusalem in 135 A.D. , the Jewish traditions, such as Passover, were forbidden. Anyone who wanted to keep their heads, accepted Easter,

Actually, some Christian teachers supported a Passover date for Easter for a LONG time after Hadrian's conquest of Jerusalem. For example, Hippolytus of Rome in the third century was very big on keeping Easter tied to Passover. It was the very fact that Christians continued to disagree over the dating of Easter that necessitated teh Council of Nicea finally stepping in to make one authoritative ruling that would be binding on the whole church.

which is associated with sun god worship. Did Early Christians Celebrate Easter?

ROFL You never learn.

 

[2ndpillar]

I discuss Catholicism, not because I think it is correct, but simply because I find religion interesting, and care greatly that its theology and history not be butchered by well intentioned but ignorant people with agendas. After all, I would not want anyone misrepresenting Judaism, so I'm simply applying the Golden Rule here.

I don't know. It seems you seem to be informed by "Christian" clerics. I suggest that you try independent sources. You seem to be butchering history as well as any "Christian" apologist, who has had many years to assemble their wares. Just because you have read the history of the supposed victors, does not make it true. What is true, is that the "nations"/Gentiles are looking at "destruction" (Jeremiah 30:7-11), during the upcoming "Jacob's distress". Daniel was able to read the writing on the wall. In your case, not so much. The "nations"/Gentiles have now come against Jerusalem (Zechariah 14:1-2). Nothing good comes of this with regard to your Gentile friends and their "falsehoods" (Jeremiah 16:19).

 

[2ndpillar]

I couldn't say for sure, but I seriously doubt they became Bishops without the ability to read the sacred texts.

As with the bishop of Alexandria, he had a scribe, by the name of Athanasius. The bishop of Rome didn't send bishops, he sent scribes. As for "sacred texts", there were none. There were thousands of differing scripts but no canon, and no clarity. The reason Constantine had to convene a Council was to make order out of chaos. Constantine attempted to have Eusebius create a bible, but there is no remaining evidence except reference to a single chapter that is not contained within the present canon. As Eusebius was an Arian, his bible would probably not have been up to snuff. Constantine had all of the writings of Arius burned, and anyone found in possession were sentenced to death.

 

[2ndpillar]

I agree. He called for the bishops to hold it, because a unified church meant a more stable empire as you said. He did not run the show. He didn't even have a vote. Ultimately, it proclaimed as orthodoxy an idea that Constantine found unfavorable, so he certainly didn't get "his way."

Constantine presided over the Council. The only thing he was interested in was a unified empire. His right-hand man, Eusebius, was an Arian, yet he exiled two Arian bishops. Your history was written by Eusebius, the Christian historian. If you want truth, you will not find it in any church history, for Eusebius admitted he lied with regard to the history of the church.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Strange, as Constantine sent bishops like Athanasius and followers of Arius, into exile for their Arian and anti-Arian views. He also appointed bishops. My suggestion would be to stay away from "Christian" faux historians.

You are mistaken. It was not Constantine. The specific incidents of Athanasius's exile occurred during the reigns of several Roman emperors, none of them during the time of Constantine. He was exiled by Constantine II and Constantius II, both of who did so not because due to his Trinitarian teachings, but because he was a violent brute that ran Alexandria like the Mafia runs Sicily. Constantine himself did not send Athanasius into exile.

Yes, you are correct that Constantine on occasion did appoint bishops. This was not for their teachings, but because of very political interest in keeping the Church unified. It is virtually the same thing as the Chinese Communist Party appointing Catholic bishops today. The CCP could care less about Catholic teachings. Their interest is simply in the best interests of the state of China (you can argue they do a terrible job, but that's another topic). These appointments by political leaders are scandalous, and resented by most Catholics. But in the end, there are just some times when Rome has to realize it is outgunned.

 

[2ndpillar]

That is correct, the Bishop of Rome did not attend. It is considered an ecumenical council because bishops came from all around the world to participate, not because EVERY bishop attended. Catholicism considers these councils to be guided by the holy spirit and infallible in their teachings on faith and morals. Do I agree with that? I find the idea of infallibility to be absurd. Nevertheless that is what Catholicism teaches.

If that is not what you believe, why do you parrot unreal beliefs? There were very few western bishops at the Council. The majority were from the eastern empire. The ex-cathedra, "infallibility" of the pope, supposedly put Mary into heaven.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I don't know. It seems you seem to be informed by "Christian" clerics.

My sources are many. When it comes to actual Catholic teaching, I rely solely on their Catechism. As regards history, I have oodles of sources, some Catholic, some secular, and some even Jewish. My favorite book on Trinitarianism is "When Jesus became God" by Rabbi Richard Rubenstein. My requirements for authors of history books is that they actually have the credentials necessary to claim they are historians, meaning advanced degrees in various fields of history or ancient texts.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Constantine presided over the Council. The only thing he was interested in was a unified empire. His right-hand man, Eusebius, was an Arian, yet he exiled two Arian bishops. Your history was written by Eusebius, the Christian historian. If you want truth, you will not find it in any church history, for Eusebius admitted he lied with regard to the history of the church.

You appear not to be reading anything I write. I this continues, if you don't start actually addressing the things I bring up, it won't be worth it for me to continue the discussion. Everything in the quote above has previously been dealt with by me in previous posts.

I do not find Eusebius to be a reliable source, and do not use him.

 

[2ndpillar]

You are mistaken. It was not Constantine. The specific incidents of Athanasius's exile occurred during the reigns of several Roman emperors, none of them during the time of Constantine. He was exiled by Constantine II and Constantius II, both of who did so not because due to his Trinitarian teachings, but because he was a violent brute that ran Alexandria like the Mafia runs Sicily. Constantine himself did not send Athanasius into exile.

Athanasius may have been a brute and who supposedly poisoned Arius, but he was exiled 5 time, and one of those was by Constantine. Constantine's son was favorable to the Arians. It was Theodosius who threw the Arian bishop out. The Eastern church so liked Constantine and Athanasius, they made them saints. Brutes and murderers.

Bing

1. Athanasius’ Exile:
   • Unfortunately, peace didn’t last long. Arius’s supporters spread false charges against Athanasius, including sorcery and treason.
   • Emperor Constantine, influenced by these accusations, exiled Athanasius from the land.
   • Athanasius faced a total of five exiles during his tenure as bishop of Alexandria, spanning almost half of his 45-year episcopacy.
   • His persistence in denouncing Arianism as heresy led to these repeated exiles.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If that is not what you believe, why do you parrot unreal beliefs? There were very few western bishops at the Council. The majority were from the eastern empire. The ex-cathedra, "infallibility" of the pope, supposedly put Mary into heaven.

I'm not "parroting." I'm quoting my sources, which is what you need to be doing too.

I'm correcting your mistaken notions of what Catholicism actually teaches and what actually happened in history. Again, its a simple matter of the Golden Rule. I would not want anyone misrepresenting Judaism or the history of the Jews so, to love my neighbor as myself, I step in when I see anyone misrepresenting some other religion. I would do the same for Buddhists or Hindus. Heck, I'd even do the same for Messianic Jews [sic] whom I find incredibly irritating with their spurious claims.

I think you just don't care for it that being a Jew makes me an unbiased outsider without any agenda. It means you can't accuse me of promoting Catholicism or Protestantism or any other religion other than Judaism. You don't like that, do you?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Athanasius may have been a brute and who supposedly poisoned Arius, but he was exiled 5 time, and one of those was by Constantine. Constantine's son was favorable to the Arians. It was Theodosius who threw the Arian bishop out. The Eastern church so liked Constantine and Athanasius, they made them saints. Brutes and murderers.

Yes, I am familiar with the things you say above. Just last week I read a very long and in depth article about Athanasius, the accusations against him, the accusations he himself made, and his various exiles, in order to reply to a completely different topic in here by another poster. If I find a question sufficiently interesting, I will do the work to make sure I actually know the truth before I type. I'm constantly googling in here.

And I agree with you. It baffles me why the Catholic Church (and the EO's) think that a violent brute like Athenasius is somehow a saint. I don't care what you think of his teachings. People who murder other bishops and have enemies beaten and spread hideous lies about others do not deserve the title of Saint.

It was actually the Melitian bishop, Arsenius, that he murdered, not Arius. But that is such a minor point. It doesn't change the essence of what you said.

 

[2ndpillar]

My sources are many. When it comes to actual Catholic teaching, I rely solely on their Catechism. As regards history, I have oodles of sources, some Catholic, some secular, and some even Jewish. My favorite book on Trinitarianism is "When Jesus became God" by Rabbi Richard Rubenstein. My requirements for authors of history books is that they actually have the credentials necessary to claim they are historians, meaning advanced degrees in various fields of history or ancient texts.

Present day circumstances kind of undermine your elite academia. Science is undermined by the Webb telescope and the Hadrian collider. Historians are being undermined by new discoveries and their bias. Jewish scribes are undermined by Jeremiah 8:8. Advanced degrees, except in California, the state of outdoor bathrooms and no prosecutions, and Governor Newsome, are not well looked upon. If your source of knowledge is the Catholic Catechism, you ain't got much to work with.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Present day circumstances kind of undermine your elite academia. Science is undermined by the Webb telescope and the Hadrian collider. Historians are being undermined by new discoveries and their bias. Jewish scribes are undermined by Jeremiah 8:8. Advanced degrees, except in California, the state of outdoor bathrooms and no prosecutions, and Governor Newsome, are not well looked upon.

You are throwing out everything but the kitchen sink, stuff that is entirely unrelated to the discussion.

If your source of knowledge is the Catholic Catechism, you ain't got much to work with.

The Catechism of the Catholic church is an authorized source of Catholic teaching. If you find something in the Catechism, THAT is official Catholic teaching, not something you find on an anti-Catholic website.

I realize that the CC recognizes many texts as authoritative, including the Bible, the documents of ecumenical councils, and statements made by Popes when speaking ex-cathedra. But (other than the Bible) I simply am not as familiar with those texts as with the Catechism. Remember, this is not my religion, nor do I make any claim to be a scholar.

Dude, I'm wiped out. My wrists are aching from so much typing, and my brain is shorting out from visiting so many sites and reading in order to provide replies adequate for your inquiries. This has been enormously fun, but I'm going to take a break now. If you reply, I will respond, but just at a later time.

Be well.

 

[2ndpillar]

You are throwing out everything but the kitchen sink, stuff that is entirely unrelated to the discussion.

You are building your case supposedly on elite academia and religious ideologues. Your elite Mr. Science, Mr. Fauci, has undermined your experts. DNA and archeology is undermining the history narrative. Present observations are undermining everything else. If you have cats, supposedly they will remain with you.

 

[2ndpillar]

The Catechism of the Catholic church is an authorized source of Catholic teaching. If you find something in the Catechism, THAT is official Catholic teaching, not something you find on an anti-Catholic website.

Your problem is the Catholic church is just one of many "Christian" sects, which apparently has around 34,000 sects disagreeing with their main themes. Not that the other sects are correct, but they do seem to point out the flaws of the Catholic church. Luther pointed out a few but had to leave town on the midnight train to escape the Inquisition. Not that Luther was anything to write home about, but even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You are building your case supposedly on elite academia and religious ideologues. Your elite Mr. Science, Mr. Fauci, has undermined your experts. DNA and archeology is undermining the history narrative. Present observations are undermining everything else. If you have cats, supposedly they will remain with you.

Fauci? Who the hell is talking about Fauci? Looks like you new favored strategy is to simply contaminate what used to be an honest discussion with wild accusations and irrelevant information.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Your problem is the Catholic church is just one of many "Christian" sects,

That's true today. It hasn't always been true. There was a time when it was the only Christian show in town.

which apparently has around 34,000 sects disagreeing with their main themes.

Yes. Primarily Protestant, due to their insistence on Bible only, which simply isn't sufficient to assure unity.

Not that the other sects are correct, but they do seem to point out the flaws of the Catholic church. Luther pointed out a few but had to leave town on the midnight train to escape the Inquisition. Not that Luther was anything to write home about, but even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while.

I try to stay out of the intra-Christian debates. From time to time, I'll mention something obvious. But usually I just let them fight among themselves.

I'm sure you were just being funny with your remark about Luther escaping the Inquistion.