This whole post of yours looks to be just copied from someone else's writing. But let's go through it anyway.
In regards to this first point, upon looking at what seems to be your source, its assertion is that the crucifixion was Wednesday and the Resurrection occurred Saturday night. Even if true, this poses no problem for the statement of a Sunday resurrection; if we take the Jewish reckoning, then Sunday started on sundown on Saturday (what we nowadays normally call "Saturday night"), thereby putting it on Sunday in the Jewish reckoning. Or, if we want to consider it Sunday in the modern sense of it being past midnight... such would still be during the night. Thus we still can call it a Sunday resurrection, even should this claim of your source be accurate.
And other, more accurate, encyclopedias correctly state that these supposed "pagan in origin" things actually don't come from paganism at all.
But let's take a look at your evidences of paganism.
The actual situation is far more complex than this. One writer, Bede, when talking about the origin of the names of the English months (we no longer use those months), asserts that Eosturmonab was named after a goddess named Eostre for which there were feasts in that month. As noted
here, this is the entirety of what Bede says about Eostre:
In olden time the English people -- for it did not seem fitting to me that I should speak of other people's observance of the year and yet be silent about my own nation's -- calculated their months according to the course of the moon. Hence, after the manner of the Greeks and the Romans (the months) take their name from the Moon, for the Moon is called mona and the month monath.
The first month, which the Latins call January, is Giuli; February is called Solmonath; March Hrethmonath; April, Eosturmonath; May, Thrimilchi; June, Litha; July, also Litha; August, Weodmonath; September, Halegmonath; October, Winterfilleth; November, Blodmonath; December, Giuli, the same name by which January is called. ...
Nor is it irrelevant if we take the time to translate the names of the other months. ... Hrethmonath is named for their goddess Hretha, to whom they sacrificed at this time. Eosturmonath has a name which is now translated "Paschal month", and which was once called after a goddess of theirs named Eostre, in whose honour feasts were celebrated in that month. Now they designate that Paschal season by her name, calling the joys of the new rite by the time-honoured name of the old observance. Thrimilchi was so called because in that month the cattle were milked three times a day...
The problem is that aside from this brief reference, we have no references to Eostre and have found no relics dedicated to her. Bede may have had access to things we do not... but he also could have just been relying on incorrect information. Remember, he attributes the name of the prior month to a goddess we
also have no clear evidence of outside of his remark!
Even if we were to suppose Bede's information on the source of this month's name was right, Easter appears to have taken its name from the
month. The translation above says "they designated that Paschal season by her name", but the Latin is unclear as to whether he is saying "her name" (Eostre) or "its name" (the month), as well explained
here. For the reasons the link gives, it seems more plausible to me that Bede is saying it comes from the month.
But let us suppose that Bede's information on Eostre was completely correct and that it came from the goddess rather than the month. That would, at most, be an argument that in
English we should use a different name. For you see, in most of the world, the word "Easter" is not used at all. In Spanish--which more people speak natively than English!--the word is
pascua. Clearly this has nothing to do with any Eostre. At most, the English name is taken from this goddess--and again, even that is very far from certain.
But here we turn from a somewhat plausible claim to nonsense. As noted, the above quotes from Bede are we have on this alleged goddess. Do you see him say she was the goddess of spring, fertility, and new life? No. So this is total speculation. It also says she was "the great Anglo-Saxon goddess" even though apparently she wasn't "great" enough to leave a mark larger than an offhand reference!
More made-up claims; there is not any real evidence of any of these, outside of the ones that can just be considered alternate spellings of Eostre. Indeed, Ostara was a conjecture. In the 19th century Jacob Grimm was aware that there was no evidence of Eostre outside of Bede's brief remark and that for this reason there was considerable skepticism that there ever was any Eostre who was believed in. But he respected Bede and wanted to assert that Bede was right. As part of his argument on why Bede was right, he
conjectured the possibility of a corresponding German goddess named Ostara. That is where Ostara came from: A 19th century conjecture.
It is not clear where the claim that "eastre" was the ancient word for spring comes from. When I look up eastre in an
Old English Dictionary, it simply tells me it's an alternate spelling for Easter.
And... so? If this is supposed to be some kind of argument against Easter, note this applies to Passover also.
Well then, if it can be traced back to these ancient pagan customs, how about you offer evidence?
But of course, you don't, for either this or the successive claims. This is the problem with these "Easter is pagan" claims. People
make stuff up. They just say something and act as if that's the case without offering evidence.
Given how I've personally really never seen lilies used as symbols of Easter, the importance of this seems low. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, just that I haven't seen it.
But even so, I can't help but notice you yet again claim this without evidence. So please provide proof. Also provide proof that:
1) These pagans were doing this
before it was used in Easter celebrations
2) These Easter celebrations utilizing it occurred early enough that it could have been taken from paganism
3) The pagan celebrations could have plausibly influenced Easter (i.e. it wasn't just something off in Japan or whatever)
Same points as the above. You're making this without evidence. Give the evidence I requested.
Indeed, why should one take the above claims seriously when you follow it up with the following whopper:
Once again: The only information we have about Eostre is from Bede's brief reference. Anything anyone says about Eostre outside of that is speculation. Or in this case,
completely made up. All this stuff about how an "ox was sacrificed" for Eostre, and that they were carved into the bread? Totally made up! Just like, most likely, the things you previously said!
Just to further show off the errors
, you claim that "buns" is derived from a word for "sacred ox." Funny--every etymological dictionary I consult says nothing of this. This is another made-up claim.
Oh, and hot cross buns are first attested to in the 18th century, or at least I've been unable to find anything beyond that. Care you explain how a tradition that started in the 18th century traces back to a (supposed) feast that no one had been celebrating for about one thousand years?
So all you've offered in your post is a bunch of claims made without any evidence, and much of them can be easily shown to be nonsense.
