Troy,

Are you saying there's no room for Roman/Western influences on the Eastern Church's selection of these dates? The Nestorian and other Syriac-speaking churches have always been Monophysite in their theology, and geographically well outside of the Church of Rome's influence. Consequently, the idea that they were shaped by the Roman Catholic Church in their observance of the dates of Easter and Christmas is completely without merit. And remember, "Pascha" was observed by these Eastern churches centuries before there was even a "need" to "Christianise" a pagan celebration for evangelistic purposes in the West! When we factor the Copts and Ethiopians into the equation, two communions having nothing whatsoever to do with Rome, but who observed "Easter" as the date that (a) catechumens were baptised, and (b) that communion was taken, your preferred theory becomes even less tenable.

I'd suggest to you that the only factual "linkage" to pagan "observance" was the adoption of the term "Easter" as a replacement for "Pascha" by the Roman Church in the late eighth century!

To me this a moot point anyway. The pagan origins of these feasts do not make them 'evil' or 'bad'. Neither does it mean they do not now have Christian meaning and significance for those who believe. Just because we begin our trip in Melbourne doesn't mean we're any less in Sydney by the end of the trip. The point is hardly moot given that you stated, and continue to state, that the Christian observances derived from pagan origins. Well, they didn't. Far too frequently claims of the sort that you suggested are made, and much like Bart Ehrman's arguments, they will seem credible to people who are altogether unfamiliar with the history of the matter via first-hand acquaintance with the primary sources.

So I would suggest that Christian faith observance isn't simply a matter of "Golden Bough" comparative religion theories: of "share and share alike"! In this instance the only "borrowing" that one can accuse Christianity of, is from Judaism.

Blessings,

Ian

Good morning, Troy.

You made your point about Easter being linked to the Jewish feast of Passover and that makes perfect sense. Of course the early Church would memorialise the death and resurrection of their Messiah at the time it was said to have occurred in the Gospels. So conceded. But why do the different orthodox churches have differing dates? For the very simple reason that the (National) Orthodox continues to base liturgical dates on the Julian calendar, whereas the Roman Catholic Church adopted the Gregorian calendar in the 16th century.

And why did the Romans change the name to Easter? As I mentioned in an earlier post, the Roman Catholics changed the name from Πάσχα to Easter in the late eighth century. Contrary to popular myth, "Easter" wasn't a direct reference to the observance of a "feast" for a pagan deity. The term derives from the name of the fourth month of the Saxon calendar, Eostur-monath. So the pagan reference is secondary and indirect, in precisely the same way that January represents "Janus", March, "Mars" and so on in our modern calendar.

And what about Christmas?  What evidence do you have that it was not taken directly from a Pagan feast and that it was celebrated by the Eastern Church, etc.? Why did they choose December 25th if there is no record in the gospels of a date? Again, reference to the observance of Christmas goes back to the post-Apostolic Church. Early exegetes speculated that Jesus was born either in late December or early January, and they based that date on a long-standing Jewish tradition that God created the world on the vernal equinox. The early Christians believed that Jesus, being God's Son, would have been conceived on this important memorial day, and nine months from March 25 leads to December 25. Early Christian exegetes who commented on the date of "Christmas" include Julius Africanus (early 3rd century), Hippolytus (also early 3rd century) and John Chrysostom (early 4th century). Chrysostom supported the earlier tradition, but he reinforced it, if I may paraphrase him, thus:

Luke 1 records that Zechariah was performing priestly duty in the Temple when an angel told his wife Elizabeth that she would bear a son, whom she called John (later the Baptist). During the sixth month of Elizabeth's pregnancy, Mary learned about her conception of Jesus, and she visited Elizabeth with haste. The 24 courses of Jewish priests served for one week at a time in the Temple, with Zechariah being in the eighth course. Rabbinical tradition fixed the course on duty when the Temple was destroyed in AD 70 and, calculating backward from that, Zechariah's course would have been serving October 2 to 9 in 5 BC. So Mary's conception visit six months later might have occurred the following March, with Jesus' birth nine months afterwards, in December.

It is beyond a shadow of a doubt that both Christmas and Easter (and many other Christian feast days) were pagan feasts that the Church Christianised in an attempt to be more culturally adaptive to the masses. (From post # 6) Perhaps it's time that you recanted of your support for this altogether false assertion?

In closing we discover that Christians were observing "Christmas" centuries before there was a supposed need to "Christianise" a pagan festival for evangelistic purposes, and in the East as well as in the West. That I had to inform you of some fairly straightforward facts of history leads me to offer to you, the following bold advice: given what are clearly substantial gaps in your knowledge, I'd recommend that you discipline yourself to be a lot more critical in your reading, and a lot less critical in what you presume to be the "truths" of Christianity.

Blessings,

Ian

Hello, Troy.

Thanks for the reply. As always, I'm more than happy to advance your education on Christianity and her doctrines ("Knowledge dispels fear", and all that).

So would it be correct to say both Catholics and Orthodox abandoned the Jewish Passover dates for 'another' system? Nope. The issue is one of calendar (i.e. how one records days), and not observance. The controversy in the late third and early fourth centuries had to do with the issue of keeping the Jewish Passover, versus the respecting of Sunday as the day of resurrection. But even this controversy doesn't change the fact that Christians Church-wide (i.e. in Africa, Asia and Europe) were celebrating "Easter" as a Christian commemoration, and then centuries before anyone trotted out a supposed "link" to a pagan feast (a theory which largely dates from the Enlightenment era, by the way). 

Right, so it was an indirect link (once removed) to the pagan deity. Hardly. What you claimed was that Easter began as a pagan observance, one which was later "Christianised". The reverse, it seems, is actually the case.

Right, so it was not a Apostolic tradition. We're talking 3rd and 4th centuries, 200-300 years after the supposed time of Jesus and his Apostles.  Ian, by this stage the Church was VERY Gentile and this has given much time for the pagan influences to take hold. I see nothing in your comments here to show that there wasn't a Christainisation of a pagan feast. Nope. If you were to become acquainted with Hippolytus and Julius Africanus, then you would discover that they discussed an observance that both called "ancient", and which Hippolytus specifically stated was derived from the apostles. As I mentioned earlier, Christmas was celebrated centuries before the supposed pagan "link" ever arose, and that there was no comparable feast anywhere in the East that's mentioned in contemporary literature, nor in the West until the mid 5th century for that matter. All that you've done, Troy, is presume a pagan influence. I'd invite you prove that such was the case, and then from sources contemporary to the Fathers I've referred to.

Moving on. It seems that you've become enamoured by what is a long-discredited hypothesis. Each and every one of the points that you apparently found convincing in the quoted piece from the "Infidel" site, has been severely critiqued and rebutted by historians (both secular and religious) for the better part of a century, and then as a consequence of them (a) lacking in any contemporary historical support whatsoever, and (b) for the fact that such theories were proposed as philosophically motivated attempts to discredit the historicity of Christianity. If you'd like to become better informed of the broad contours of the discussion, I would be more than happy to provide you with a selection of authors, titles and editions from the relevant scholarly journals and monographs that demonstrate as much.

Perhaps it's time that you recanted of your support for this altogether false assertion? Or not.  ;)  Though I have already conceded Easter...for now.  :) I'm very confident that you will be forced to recant the lot, before too long. In closing we discover that Christians were observing "Christmas" centuries before there was a supposed need to "Christianise" a pagan festival for evangelistic purposes, and in the East as well as in the West. Um, no we don't.  We actually have the opposite and that Christmas is not mentioned until the 2nd or 3rd centuries, long after Christianity was the dominant Gentile religion leaving lots of time for and reasons for it to occur. The opposite? I don't think so. To begin with, Christianity was hardly the "dominant Gentile religion" in the second century! It was during that particular period that State-based persecutions and pogroms against the faith largely took place! There are counter-Christian polemical writings dating from the era, and Gnostic ones too, so why is it that there are no claims of Christianity having "borrowed" from earlier cults among them? Why is it that the overwhelming complaint was that Christianity was "new"? What I do think about matters is that you're tenuously hanging on by your very fingernails to a long disproven myth. And the question that begs asking is: "why"? (The answer, of course, is patently obvious).

That I had to inform you of some fairly straightforward facts of history leads me to offer to you, the following bold advice: given what are clearly substantial gaps in your knowledge, I'd recommend that you discipline yourself to be a lot more critical in your reading, and a lot less critical in what you presume to be the "truths" of Christianity. Ian, you seemed to be doing so well there. Is this why the above comments seem so pompous and patronising? It probably has to do with your constant grasping at straws, and staunch refusal to admit error :) As for being patronising, perhaps it has to do with me having to explain some simple facts to a person who, by his own admission, already holds "two religious degrees". Comments such as the following don't evince much in the way of evidence of critical thought and evaluation: "It is beyond a shadow of a doubt that both Christmas and Easter (and many other Christian feast days) were pagan feasts that the Church Christianised in an attempt to be more culturally adaptive to the masses". A nice claim, but where is the contemporary, primary source evidence proffered in support of the statement? And how is what you've suggested any different in substance and approach to what Revivalists contest is "true" with respect to the Roman Catholic Church? British-Israel? Bible Numerics? Or Pyramidology? Is it a case of "start with a philosophical position, and attempt to build the evidence around it"?

Ding ding...Round 3! Really?! I would have thought you'd learned from previous bloodied noses in past bouts.

Blessings,

Ian

Troy,

Have you already forgotten what this discussion was about? You're the one who claimed Easter and Christmas were pagan festivals, that were later "Christianised". Now it seems that you've changed the discussion to whether or not Christianity adopted pagan (or Gnostic) beliefs during her history? So which is it? The former? Or the latter?

Theories are all well and good, and they'd probably satisfy the blissfully naive and completely uninformed. But facts are what I'm after. You are the one who made the above claim, so let's see you provide the proof that you believe supports it (instead of hoping that argumentum ex silentio will make the grade). In the interest of extending what would otherwise become a very short debate, I'll give you a piece of free advice: if you're going to hinge your argument on the various Roman cultus that you believe offer parallels to Christianity, then you might want to familiarise yourself with the past 50 years worth of research on the subject. Given what you've offered thus far, you're woefully out of date, and out of step with "recent" scholarship.

Finally, do try to keep your cool. Hissy fits have no place in "objective" debate.

Blessings,

Ian

Easter is yours oh gracious one.  I concede...for the 9th time.  ;p

Christmas...

You may now respond regarding the date being the same as both Saturn and Mithra's birthdays...

I found this article here to be helpful: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/news/2000/dec08.html  Please note this a reputable, Evangelical Christian site, not a hostile one. The headings are mine.

Early birth celebrations were not Dec 25th

Frickin' Pagans Got There First

East and West were NOT the same

Here's her email address if you want to take issue with her claims...as I am sure you will goddamnit!

cheditor@ChristianityToday.com

Wikipedia had some interesting things to say in their article about Xmas under the heading Pre-Christian background.  Before you slam me for daring to use Wikipedia, the claims are ribbed for her pleasure...er, sorry, footnoted for your perusal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas#cite_note-SolInvictus-6

Ding Ding!

TROY

Troy,

That's it? That's your proof? An article in "Christianity Today"? And an entry on "Wikipedia"? Geez, you must be hard-up for sources where you live.

Scroll back through the discussion and you'll note that I already stated that the date for Christmas was believed by the Church Fathers to be either late December or early January. The point of debate hasn't changed, however. You claimed that a pagan feast was "Christianised" for "evangelical" reasons, and I've not disputed the reality of the natalis solis invicti. But you've not demonstrated that it actually formed the substructure upon which the superstructure of Christmas was built. You've simply drawn an inference between the two. Just as you did with Easter, as I recall.

Evidence, not supposition is what wins debates.

Now I have a few questions that I'd like you to consider and respond to: (1) why does the Western Orthodox (i.e. the Roman Catholic Church) celebrate Christmas on the 25th December, but the Eastern Orthodox celebrates it on January 6? (2) Have you established any link between the pagan observance of the 25th of December, and Christmas, that predates 1789 yet? Any published material at all? (3) Have you gone to the primary sources yet, or are you still reliant on secondary and tertiary versions.

I suppose that if you've found my evidence to be unconvincing I can only hope that you'll eventually bring something of evidentiary value to the table in support of your perspective.

Blessings,

Ian

Troy,

Geez, you must be hard-up for sources where you live. Duh!  I'm in CHINA!!! That only sinking in now is it?
Nope. But I must say that I'm a little surprised you would decide to challenge me on this issue with nothing more substantial than a few anti-Christian Internet sites as your source for "scholarly" information! I would've expected that you would've learned of the need to be more adequately prepared from our previous encounters over the years. Now you've certainly lost none of your passion, and you should be commended for it! But by the same token, you've apparently not improved much in either learning or in your capacity for debate. 

Evidence, not supposition is what wins debates. Nah, from where you sit only Ian wins the debates. Thank Jesus for that huh? Nope. I win all of our debates because I know the source material. Unlike you, I don't just have a handful of personal opinions in my back pocket, that I trot out hoping noone will be the wiser. I suppose that if you've found my evidence to be unconvincing I can only hope that you'll eventually bring something of evidentiary value to the table in support of your perspective. Please. Nope, I see the 'in China' thing isn't really sinking in after all. You have decided I must access and quote sources beyond my ability to locate and refuse to engage my arguments.  Sorry, but I am unable to meet your requirements for this discussion.  I guess we really are done here after all. Right. Living overseas automatically precludes you from the normal requirement to provide factual evidence to support your views? Ergo, you can claim whatever you want, and we must simply accept you at your word, because "you live in China"? This being the case now, what was your excuse during all those years you lived in Australia?

Anyway, because I'm such a nice guy, and because engagement with you always serves to demonstrate the difference between marshaling facts versus relying on fictions, I'm prepared to let you drag yourself off the canvas for a bit if you're spoiling to keep on throwing those "hay-makers" of yours.

Blessings, my friend.

Ian

Pete, once more.

Yeah... it is a facebook discussion, with ex Revs. Okay. So how is that materially different from online discussions with ex Revivalists here?  Another piped up (a now paster in a pentecostal church) and said that Satan wants Christians to fight Christians, and what would the unbelievers think? I told him the unbeliever might be comforted to know that Christians are free to indulge in heathy debate. He said debates are one thing and arguments are another. There you have it, a bunch of ex-Revivalists seeking to 'theologise' on Facebook :) And whilst the location might have changed, neither the medium nor the discussions apparently have. In any case your 'pastor' friend probably doesn't have a particularly good grasp of Christian history. Believers who know both their Bibles and their theology have always been passionate about hammering out the implications of their beliefs with others.

I said that makes little sense. Arguments are only a problem when people are disrespectful, ala most people who visit the forum... back when people used to visit the forum. Actually, people still do visit here; there are normally between five to ten people online whenever I look in. But regardless of this, I'm interested in learning if you believe the discussions on Facebook represent an improvement over what used to take place here, and if so, 'why'?

Blessings, bro'.

Ian

"A friend of mine isn't going to church anymore because they feel that everyone is following pagan beliefs by allowing fertility symbols in their families, such as eggs and bunnies. Any thoughts? “

Hi Mothy,

A scripture came to mind, after I read your post, prompted me to read Mark 7: and look into other sources.
It speaks of the traditions of men handed down nullifying the word of God. Example used is the ceremonial washings.
Jesus tells us that their teachings are but rules taught by men. Traditions from the past are handed down to us today and a few flowed over from paganism, but as with the Pharisees of that time, we need to be careful we do not see the gospel as a judgment gospel, or a ‘Law-Gospel’, of do and don’ts, but focus more on the Grace and the undeserved forgiveness we have received.   

Ian said, “Your friends are dwelling on the things that don’t matter”

Does the orthodox church, even with their traditions, disobey the true gospel of God?  I believe not.

There are some things I personally still tend to feel judgmental about, but unless it is for reasons beyond my control, I wouldn’t leave my Church for trivial things.

There is no believing in God. We either know God, or we don’t.” (~Gregory David Roberts, Author “Shantaram”)

Ralph.

Good morning, Pete.

Well, if you're struggling to make sense of the subject, then perhaps you should re-read this very thread? Herein I slapped Troy around a wee bit, whilst providing him with facts to provoke him into rethinking the fictions he dearly wished were true :)

In brief compass, the facts are these:

1. Easter was observed and celebrated by Christians long before there was any linkage made to 'equivalent' pagan observances in the West. The earliest reference we have dates from the mid-second century, i.e. within living memory of the last apostle. It was observed by Eastern churches, Nestorian/Monophysite churches, and African churches alike. None of these had any association with the Western (i.e. Roman Catholic) church, nor did any of them have equivalent pagan observances they needed to 'Christianise' in order to placate/convert the masses.

2. The celebration itself was universally known as 'Pascha', a tilt to the Jewish word for 'Passover', until the western church adopted the term 'Easter' in the eighth century. The term 'Easter' itself derives from the fourth month of the Saxon calendar, 'Eostur-monath', which is attested as early as the fifth century. The only ancient reference to the claim that the Old English word 'Eostur' referred to a Germanic deity comes from the Venerable Bede in the eighth century. However, even if the claim was true, it doesn't matter. The Christian celebration of Pascha/Easter predated the adoption of the name 'Easter' by the Western Church by 600 years ;)

3. James Frazer published 'The Golden Bough' in 1890 (i.e. the nineteenth century). I've been unable to find any reference to a supposed 'pagan-linkage' that pre-dates this work. Every other published work I've been able to study bases their arguments on references published after this date. Put simply the association of the Christian celebration with pagan festivals is a nineteenth century postulation, one based squarely on the post-Enlightenment intellectual movement known as 'Romanticism'. This fact has been widely attested to, published about, and defended by, historians during the past 75 years.

4. Finally, 'Ishtar'/'Astarte' was more than simply the Akkadian fertility goddess, she was also their goddess of war. She appears in the Epic of Gilgamesh, which, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with the Christian observance of Christ's Passion and Resurrection.

To summarise: your Facebook friends don't know what they're talking about :)

Blessings,

Ian

Pete,

Yep :)  As I wrote earlier, "The only ancient reference to the claim that the Old English word 'Eostur' referred to a Germanic deity comes from the Venerable Bede in the eighth century. However, even if the claim was true, it doesn't matter. The Christian celebration of Pascha/Easter predated the adoption of the name 'Easter' by the Western Church by 600 years."

Blessings,

Ian