Date of the Resurrection

Simon_Templar · May 10, 2011

Pilgrimer said:
Although my own research places his birth in 5 B.C., I agree on every point and would add that not only does Christian history and astronomical evidence support the December 25 date, but so does archaeology, Jewish history, and Talmudic literature. But so as not to wander too far afield on this thread, I'll refrain from delving into any particulars here, but suffice it to say that all the arguments against the December 25 date are based on speculation and conjecture that has no real scriptural or historical basis.

Traditionally most historians have accepted the 5 BC time frame for several reasons relating to the timing of an eclipse before the death of Herod. The governorship of Syria, possible candidates for the registration ordered by Caesar Augustus, and so on.

I mis-stated in my previous posts, I should have said 2 BC rather than 1 BC. The 1 BC date would have been the death of Herod. In any case, I think a very good case can be put forward that all of the necessary conditions and bits of evidence come together in around 2 BC from a lunar eclipse for the death of Herod in 1 BC, to the astronomical events for the star, to a census celebrating the Senate honoring Augustus etc.

A lot of this argument has been formulated by a guy named Martin (can't remember his first name. If you do a search for "lunar eclipse 1 BC" you will find plenty of renditions of the theory.

Pilgrimer said:
Thank you for such a clear and beautiful explanation. You are correct, I did not really understand the Catholic/Anglican view of Communion or other doctrines and I appreciate not only the time you have taken to share, but also the spirit in which you have done so.

I've been studying it for seven years and I've only begun to scratch the surface. Thats one of the things that both surprised me, and also confirmed me, in my exploration of the traditional, historic Church. There is such amazing depth behind the doctrines and beliefs. In my charismatic, non-denom church I was happy for the most part, and I thought I was well educated and wise etc. At the same time, however, there were certain things that I felt like I was missing.. some of them I wasn't even fully aware of, but it just felt like the Christianity I knew wasn't complete.

When I started re-discovering Christianity according to the traditional Church, and re-discovering the writings of the early Church etc, I felt like it was complete. Not only did it have the things I felt like I was missing before, many of the holes in doctrine and scriptures that simply didn't make sense all began to fall into place. I even began to find longings in my soul that I had not even been fully aware of were being satisfied.

Yet, just when I think I might reach the bottom of something, I break through and find that the depth just keeps on going. There is much to learn and explore, but at every turn, the revelation that opens your understanding, also shows you how much more there is that you don't know.

Pilgrimer said:
Let me say that I am a Pentecostal Baptist, but I love and respect our Catholic/Anglican/Coptic/Orthodox brethren. Unlike some of my fellow Protestants, I do not view the Catholic church with the jaundiced eye that some do. Indeed, rather than the Catholic Church having adopted "pagan" customs and traditions as some misguided Protestants and anti-Christian cults claim, I have through my years of study of Levitical Law come to see that much of the ritual and ceremonial of the Catholic and other "High" Churches is based on the old Jewish Temple worship ritual and ceremonial. It is a comparative study I hope one day to be able to devote some time to, God grant that I may live that long!

Ironically I have been anxiously waiting for a book I just ordered called "Jesus and the Jewish roots of the Eucharist" which explores the roots of the eucharistic liturgy in the old Temple liturgy. As I was writing this, it arrived at the door

Pilgrimer said:
But this then brings up another issue in my mind. I see communion not as a time when we bring bread to God as an offering, not even as a thank-offering. Indeed, I dont see communion as a time of us bringing anything to God at all, but rather, communion is all about our receiving from God, a sacrifice that He has provided and offered up for us.

At the institution of the Lords Supper, it wasnt the disciples who broke bread and gave it to Jesus. It was Jesus who broke bread and handed it to the disciples and told them to eat it, that it was his body, broken for them. So they were not the ones who were offering him the bread, they were the ones who received the bread from his own hand. Same with the wine. They didnt offer Jesus their cup of wine, Jesus took his cup of wine and blessed it and handed it to them and told them to drink, it was his blood. So again, the wine too was what they received from the hand of the Lord. And in the communion, is it not the Lords body and blood that we are partaking of? We didnt offer up Jesus body and blood, For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son.

So to me, communion isnt about me bringing bread or anything to God for an offering, but instead it is about receiving a part or portion of the sacrifice that God has made for us. This bread, that is broken and partaken of in communion is not the bread of thanks-giving offered up to God, but the bread of life sent down from God:

I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. John 6:51

Your point is well taken that we do not earn grace from God by giving him offerings and sacrifices. This is an area where many, especially the nominal, traditional Christians get into trouble. The actions that we perform, and the sacraments, can become viewed as ticking off good deeds to get in God's good grace.

However, all real relationships are two way streets. All good relationships involve giving and receiving. This is true on the grand, general, scale of our relationship with God, but it is also true in the more specific interactions that we have with God.

Thus when we are in relationship with God, when we interact with God, we do give to him. However, we do not give to him in order that we may receive from him. Quite the contrary, we give to him because we have received from him. He does not give to us because we give to him. He gives to us, that we in turn might give back to him. Not at all that he hopes to gain anything for us, but he does this like a Father might give his child money so that the child can buy a present and give it to the Father on his birthday, or Father's day. The Father doesn't do this in order to gain from the child. He does it both so that the child can learn to be giving, and also so that the child can express his love to the Father more fully. It more simple terms, the Father does it because it makes the child happy to be able to give something to him, and it is good for the child to be happy about that.

An important realization in all that is that everything we give to God, is simply what he has already given to us. We have nothing to give him that he did not first give to us.

The ultimate culmination of that is that we give him ourselves. Yet we also do make offerings of money, of work, and of bread and wine.

Now, there is something interesting here that is very troublesome for most protestants. Indeed it took me quite a while to get to the point where I agreed with it.

In the communion service the minister represents Jesus Christ. He is, in effect, a delegated stand in. This is why apostolic succession and ordination (holy orders) are so important in the traditional Church. The Bishop has a succession of delegation that gives him authority to act as a stand in, a representative for Jesus. The Bishop in turn, since he can't be everywhere, delegates Presbyters (priests/elders) to act for him in ministering communion. I use the term delegate here and that is basically what an apostle is. An apostle is someone who is delegated. Some apostles were delegated by Jesus, others were delegated by Paul, or other people etc. (many people think of the 12 apostles, but there were in fact, many more apostles).

So, in the traditional view, what you said above about Jesus breaking the bread, and giving the wine, etc is absolutely 100% right. We believe that the minister who Gives the thanksgiving, and blesses the bread and wine, and breaks the bread, is a delegated representative of Jesus Christ and he is standing in for, or ministering on behalf of Jesus when he prepares and serves communion.

you are right that the act of taking communion, in particular, is about us receiving from Jesus Christ. However, consider this idea, the essense of all worship is sacrifice.

Also, a key understanding in the Catholic view in particular (perhaps not as much in the Anglican/Lutheran view) is that when we partake in a sacrament, (ie communion) we are making a sacred pledge to God that we are accepting his covenant, and as such that we are pledging to be members of his family.

Pilgrimer said:
As a final note, let me ask if you have made the connection between communion and the marriage supper of the Lamb? For all its being a mystery, it is at the same time such a simple truth that it is often overlooked but, it is when we partake of the body and blood of Christ that we become joined with the Lord into one body. This union is symbolized by the marriage of a man and woman who when joined together become one flesh, but of course there is nothing physical about our union with Christ, it is absolutely a spiritual union, and thus does not require His physical presence at all but his spiritual presence only. But to my mind and heart the marriage supper of the Lamb, the Lord and His Bride, the church, is the most blissfully beautiful expression of our relationship with Jesus Christ of any in the entirety of Scripture.

I have actually just begun to think about this connection. I read "the Lamb's Supper" by Scott Hahn which is primarily about that very topic and it has opened up alot of things for me to consider.

Pilgrimer said:
Me too. Most Christians seem to be sidetracked with all this end times doctrines that are so popular that they neglect the weightier things, like salvation and sanctification. Its not often you run across a fellow believer who is well-versed in the most important thing the Gospel.

Most of my family gets caught up in the end times fever . Generally I find end times to be an enjoyable topic because I like a good mystery and I like to try and figure it out and solve it etc.

It often gets to the point with some of my family, however, that end times is almost all they talk about and think about.

I've actually taken to referring to end times fascination as the "Christian Horror movie". It offers the same basic attraction. It gives people an exciting twinge of fear, it offers the suspense, the fascination with doom, etc. It also fits within the realm of conspiracy theory because it offers the attraction of giving the satisfaction of feeling like you are part of the inner circle who REALLY know whats going on, and the ability to dismiss responsability and need for action by ascribing everything to dark forces beyond your control.

I see on your profile that you are a partial preterist. I have a friend who is also a partial preterist so I've argued it a few times with him . I'm a futurist, but I can't say as I've ever found an end time teacher or writer who had the same views as I do exactly.

Pilgrimer · May 12, 2011

Simon_Templar said:
Traditionally most historians have accepted the 5 BC time frame for several reasons relating to the timing of an eclipse before the death of Herod. The governorship of Syria, possible candidates for the registration ordered by Caesar Augustus, and so on.

I mis-stated in my previous posts, I should have said 2 BC rather than 1 BC. The 1 BC date would have been the death of Herod. In any case, I think a very good case can be put forward that all of the necessary conditions and bits of evidence come together in around 2 BC from a lunar eclipse for the death of Herod in 1 BC, to the astronomical events for the star, to a census celebrating the Senate honoring Augustus etc.

A lot of this argument has been formulated by a guy named Martin (can't remember his first name. If you do a search for "lunar eclipse 1 BC" you will find plenty of renditions of the theory.

I'm familiar with most of the arguments. Certainly it is true that there were an unusual number of astronomical anomalies in the last decade of the previous age, it seems that the heavens bore witness to every culture and civilization to the exceptional event, but the only astronomical event that can be used to date the birth of Jesus is the one that would have been interpreted by the Magi (Zoroastrian astrologer/priests) as a sign of the birth of a Jewish king which brought them two years later to Jerusalem seeking him. There we move from the realm of conjecture to both Scriptural as well as archaeological grounds for the 5 B.C. dating.

But perhaps the most definitive dating actually comes from Josephus. In Antiquities he notes that Phillip the Tetrarch (son of Herod the Great) died in the 37th year of his reign, the 20the year of the reign of Tiberius. Tiberius began his reign on September 18 of 14 A.D. so his 20th year of reign was 34 A.D. That dates the beginning of Phillip's reign to 4 B.C. In recent decades, dated coins minted by Phillip have been found that corroborate Josephus.

But again, there is such a wealth of data that can be brought to bear on dating the birth of Jesus, and the December 25, 5 B.C. date is so well attested that there really are no factual grounds to dispute it.

Simon_Templar said:
I've been studying it for seven years and I've only begun to scratch the surface. Thats one of the things that both surprised me, and also confirmed me, in my exploration of the traditional, historic Church. There is such amazing depth behind the doctrines and beliefs. In my charismatic, non-denom church I was happy for the most part, and I thought I was well educated and wise etc. At the same time, however, there were certain things that I felt like I was missing.. some of them I wasn't even fully aware of, but it just felt like the Christianity I knew wasn't complete.

When I started re-discovering Christianity according to the traditional Church, and re-discovering the writings of the early Church etc, I felt like it was complete. Not only did it have the things I felt like I was missing before, many of the holes in doctrine and scriptures that simply didn't make sense all began to fall into place. I even began to find longings in my soul that I had not even been fully aware of were being satisfied.

Yet, just when I think I might reach the bottom of something, I break through and find that the depth just keeps on going. There is much to learn and explore, but at every turn, the revelation that opens your understanding, also shows you how much more there is that you don't know.

Ironically I have been anxiously waiting for a book I just ordered called "Jesus and the Jewish roots of the Eucharist" which explores the roots of the eucharistic liturgy in the old Temple liturgy. As I was writing this, it arrived at the door

Irony is just another face of Providence!

Simon_Templar said:
Your point is well taken that we do not earn grace from God by giving him offerings and sacrifices. This is an area where many, especially the nominal, traditional Christians get into trouble. The actions that we perform, and the sacraments, can become viewed as ticking off good deeds to get in God's good grace.

Actually, that wasn't my point at all. My point was that the bread of the Lord's Supper is not a thank-offering, it is the body of the Lord. We don't offer it to God, we receive it from God. I think it is an important distinction and if it is High Church doctrine that the bread of Holy Communion is anything other than the Lord's body I have to reject such a notion.

And while I agree with the basic premise that everything we have we received from God and therefore anything we offer up to God came from him, that still does not change the bread of Communion into a thank-offering we offer up to God because it is not us who come before God and offer up the body of Jesus Christ, it was Jesus himself, as our High Priest, who offered himself to God, a lamb without spot or blemish.

So again, I have a problem with the idea that the bread of Holy Communion is anything other than the body of the Lord or that it is in any way the bread of a thank-offering that we offer up to God.

Simon_Templar said:
However, all real relationships are two way streets. All good relationships involve giving and receiving. This is true on the grand, general, scale of our relationship with God, but it is also true in the more specific interactions that we have with God.

Thus when we are in relationship with God, when we interact with God, we do give to him. However, we do not give to him in order that we may receive from him. Quite the contrary, we give to him because we have received from him. He does not give to us because we give to him. He gives to us, that we in turn might give back to him. Not at all that he hopes to gain anything for us, but he does this like a Father might give his child money so that the child can buy a present and give it to the Father on his birthday, or Father's day. The Father doesn't do this in order to gain from the child. He does it both so that the child can learn to be giving, and also so that the child can express his love to the Father more fully. It more simple terms, the Father does it because it makes the child happy to be able to give something to him, and it is good for the child to be happy about that.

An important realization in all that is that everything we give to God, is simply what he has already given to us. We have nothing to give him that he did not first give to us.

The ultimate culmination of that is that we give him ourselves. Yet we also do make offerings of money, of work, and of bread and wine.

I agree with everything you say up to the point that we make offerings of bread and wine. I do not agree. Jesus has fulfilled every sacrifice and every offering, including all Todah, or thank-offerings. Under the New Covenant there are no more offerings of the Law to be made, they are all fulfilled in the sacrifice of Jesus.

So again, I don't agree that the Lord's Supper is a sacrifice or offering that we make to God, but rather it is our partaking of the sacrifice that Jesus made and offered up to God. The Lord's Supper, the Marriage Supper, is about our partaking of that sacrifice and thereby being joined and made one with the Lord's body.

Simon_Templar said:
Now, there is something interesting here that is very troublesome for most protestants. Indeed it took me quite a while to get to the point where I agreed with it.

In the communion service the minister represents Jesus Christ. He is, in effect, a delegated stand in. This is why apostolic succession and ordination (holy orders) are so important in the traditional Church. The Bishop has a succession of delegation that gives him authority to act as a stand in, a representative for Jesus. The Bishop in turn, since he can't be everywhere, delegates Presbyters (priests/elders) to act for him in ministering communion. I use the term delegate here and that is basically what an apostle is. An apostle is someone who is delegated. Some apostles were delegated by Jesus, others were delegated by Paul, or other people etc. (many people think of the 12 apostles, but there were in fact, many more apostles).

So, in the traditional view, what you said above about Jesus breaking the bread, and giving the wine, etc is absolutely 100% right. We believe that the minister who Gives the thanksgiving, and blesses the bread and wine, and breaks the bread, is a delegated representative of Jesus Christ and he is standing in for, or ministering on behalf of Jesus when he prepares and serves communion.

you are right that the act of taking communion, in particular, is about us receiving from Jesus Christ. However, consider this idea, the essense of all worship is sacrifice.

I think Protestants have a problem with that idea for very good reasons. There is only one mediator between man and God, and that is Jesus. There is no other mediator, nor is one required as Jesus is present in spirit to minister to each and every one of us and we are free to approach the very throne of God at any time because Jesus himself has gone before us and opened the way.

In addition, Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians that it is God who places the members in his body, first apostles, then prophets, then teachers, etc. So I also do not agree that man, any man, be he pope or king, is responsible for placing the members of Christ's body in their respective positions, or equipping them for the ministry. That is a function of God Himself, through His Spirit.

I'm not sure I agree with your last statement. The basis of true worship is sacrifice, as a means of reconciliation and fellowship without which there could be no true worship, but the essense of true worship is faith. As Jesus told the woman at the well, the day was coming (and now is) when God's people would no longer worship God in temples or at altars on mountaintops, but they that worship God would worship him in spirit and in truth. God can only be truly worshipped in the spirit, and that can just as truly be done by a prisoner sitting alone in a dark cell chained to a wall as by a petitioner kneeling at the altar of a soaring cathedral. While rites and rituals may be helpful, they are not necessary.

Simon_Templar said:
Also, a key understanding in the Catholic view in particular (perhaps not as much in the Anglican/Lutheran view) is that when we partake in a sacrament, (ie communion) we are making a sacred pledge to God that we are accepting his covenant, and as such that we are pledging to be members of his family.

Again, I see that a little differently. I understand the rite in which we make a sacred pledge to God that we are accepting his covenant is baptism, when we publically bear witness that our old man has died and been buried with Christ (and we go down under the water) and we are raised up a new man (we are raised up out of the water) and from that moment forward we walk in newness of life. This is the rite which initiates us into the faith. Partaking of the Lord's Supper is for those already initiated into the faith.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

Simon_Templar · May 13, 2011

Hi Pilgrimer,

I didn't want to derail this thread by getting too off topic, so I started a new thread in the forum and posted my response in there.

Here is the link to that thread...
http://www.christianforums.com/t7559574/

Pilgrimer · May 13, 2011

Simon_Templar said:
Hi Pilgrimer,

I didn't want to derail this thread by getting too off topic, so I started a new thread in the forum and posted my response in there.

I must say that I really had no desire to debate High Church/Low Church doctrine, I am much more interested in New Testament history, but since it appears this discussion has fizzled out, I'll join you there and wait and see if anyone has anything further to add on the date of the Resurrection.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

Simon_Templar · May 13, 2011

Pilgrimer said:
I must say that I really had no desire to debate High Church/Low Church doctrine, I am much more interested in New Testament history, but since it appears this discussion has fizzled out, I'll join you there and wait and see if anyone has anything further to add on the date of the Resurrection.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

I would think of it more as friendly conversation than debate

Though I, of course, do try to be somewhat persuasive, I generally look at my side of it as explaining my viewpoint and why I believe it, rather than trying hard to convince others that they must agree.

I must confess that while I'm familiar with the historical arguments for the 5 BC date, I am not terribly familiar with the astronomical arguments for 5 BC. Any good sites you could recommend that review the astronomical events of 5 BC?

You are obviously well versed in the history of the early Church time period, but I'm curious if you've spent most of your research effort in secondary/scholarly sources or if you've also read widely in the primary sources, especially the early Christian writers (ie early Church Fathers)?

Markus6 · May 13, 2011

Pilgrimer said:
I don't think there is. What the church was arguing, and I believe rightly so, is that it wasn't proper to calculate Easter based on the practice of the Jews who calculated the Passover based on physical observations made in Jerusalem, when the church had a better means of calculating Easter that would give a "truer order" (more correct calculation) that would be useful for future generations. There were several mathematical calculations being used at the time but the church at Alexandria (the Coptic church) was using the Metonic cycle developed by the ancient Greek Meton of Athens which used a 19-year lunar cycle. This method of calculation would allow Christians throughout the world to celebrate Easter on the same day each year, whereas the Jewish practice had so much variance that some years Passover was celebrated before the vernal equinox. The Jewish method of calculation based on physical observation was simply too unreliable so the church opted to rely on the Metonic cycle instead. It wasn't anti-Semitic, it was practical.

And I do believe that the church was vindicated in this decision because in subsequent years the Jews also began to use the same 19-year Metonic cycle when Hillel II began his work on a fixed calendar using the Metonic cycle to fix the intercalations at regular intervals rather than randomly based on observations by the Sanhedrin. The fixed Jewish Calendar today is likewise based on the Metonic cycle.

So I don't agree that the Christian Church's decision to drop the unreliable Jewish method of calculation based on observations made in Jerusalem in favor of the more accurate Metonic cycle was anti-Semitic, unless we are going to accuse Hillel II and later Jews who did the same thing as being anti-Semitic as well?

I do see the practical aspect of the decision but I don't think that means there can't be an aspect of anti-semitism involved as well. It is evident in the language used. Here's a fuller quote from Constantine's letter, emphasis obviously mine:

Constantine's Letter to those not at the Council - recorded by Eusebius said:
When the question relative to the sacred festival of Easter arose, it was universally thought that it would be convenient that all should keep the feast on one day; for what could be more beautiful and more desirable, than to see this festival, through which we receive the hope of immortality, celebrated by all with one accord, and in the same manner? It was declared to be particularly unworthy for this, the holiest of all festivals, to follow the custom[the calculation] of the Jews, who had soiled their hands with the most fearful of crimes, and whose minds were blinded. In rejecting their custom,(1) we may transmit to our descendants the legitimate mode of celebrating Easter, which we have observed from the time of the Saviour's Passion to the present day[according to the day of the week]. We ought not, therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews, for the Saviour has shown us another way; our worship follows a more legitimate and more convenient course(the order of the days of the week); and consequently, in unanimously adopting this mode, we desire, dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews, for it is truly shameful for us to hear them boast that without their direction we could not keep this feast. How can they be in the right, they who, after the death of the Saviour, have no longer been led by reason but by wild violence, as their delusion may urge them? They do not possess the truth in this Easter question; for, in their blindness and repugnance to all improvements, they frequently celebrate two passovers in the same year. We could not imitate those who are openly in error. How, then, could we follow these Jews, who are most certainly blinded by error? for to celebrate the passover twice in one year is totally inadmissible. But even if this were not so, it would still be your duty not to tarnish your soul by communications with such wicked people[the Jews].

The language would clearly be recognised as anti-semitic today. But also the reference to the shame of hearing the Jews boast clearly reveals a reason behind the ruling that was not merely practical.

Pilgrimer said:
Perhaps you should view the video again. He provides a very convincing link ... when Tyndale translated the Bible into English he made use of Luther's German translation of the Bible in which Luther used the word "Oster" (Ostern) which is the German word for Easter. That is a direct link.

Yes that link is clear and I completely accept it. Recognizing that the word is Germanic and not somehow Babylonian is absolutely correct. It is the second link, to the word for resurrection "Erstehen" that has no basis.

Pilgrimer said:
There are a number of problems with the account of Bede, but the most compelling is that it was in fact one of the reforms introduced by Charlemagne, who was the scourge of German paganism, who renamed all the months agriculturally into Old High German names that were used, in some cases, until the late 18th century: thus January was named Wintarmanoth (winter month), February became Hornung (the month when the male red deer sheds its antlers), March became Lentzinmanoth (Lent month), April was renamed Ostarmanoth (Easter month), May became Wonnemanoth (love making month), June became Brachmanoth (plowing month), July became Heuvimanoth (hay month), August Aranmanoth (harvest month), September Witumanoth (wood month for wood being laid up for the winter), October Windumemanoth (vintage month), November Herbistmanoth (autumn/harvest month), and December became Heilagmanoth (holy month of Christ's birth).

I'm not sure what your point is as Bede's account (written in 725) comes before Charlemagne was born. Bede's account also makes it clear that at that point any prior meaning has been lost and Eostre only refers to the resurrection celebration. Therefore, there is no reason that Charlemagne would name the month anything different.

Pilgrimer said:
Certainly before the Saxons were conquered and Christianized the months carried other names, but the Anglo-Saxons named their week days after deities, not their months. The months were named after cyclical events, for example, February was Solmonath meaning mud-month, and November was Blotmonath, meaning blood-month because it was the month of slaughtering animals. There is no evidence from any source that they named any month after a deity, nor is there any evidence for a goddess Eostre in any Germanic/Norse mythology.

You're right, Bede is our only source, but the connection made by the author of the video has even less evidence - unless we can find an account from before Bede that shows the word Erstehen being connected to the celebration we only have one hypothesis. There are alos theories connecting Eostre as a dawn Goddess:

Wikipedia said:
One of the most important goddesses of reconstructed Proto-Indo-European religion is the dawn goddess. Her name is reconstructed as Ausōs (PIE *h₂ewsṓs- or *h2ausōs-, an s-stem), besides numerous epithets.
Cognates of *h₂ewsṓs in the historical mythologies of Indo-European peoples include Indian Uṣas, Greek Ἠώς (Ēōs), Latin Aurōra, and Baltic Aušra ("dawn", c.f. Lithuanian Aušrinė). Germanic *Austrōn- is from an extended stem *h₂ews-tro-.[1]

Dawn goddess (Proto-Indo-European) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - yup, not a stellar source I know.

Pilgrimer · May 18, 2011

Markus6 said:
I do see the practical aspect of the decision but I don't think that means there can't be an aspect of anti-semitism involved as well. It is evident in the language used ... The language would clearly be recognised as anti-semitic today. But also the reference to the shame of hearing the Jews boast clearly reveals a reason behind the ruling that was not merely practical.

Oh, absolutely the language is anti-Semitic, but this is not a letter composed by the church, it’s a letter composed by the Roman Emperor Constantine. I think you might be making a very common mistake of assuming the Roman Emperor Constantine in some way held authority in or spoke for the church, but that’s not the case. Constantine is viewed by some historians as a Christian but was clearly motivated by political considerations, as his own writings admit. Historians are divided on the claims to Christianity of Constantine, but the better opinion is that his actual conversion did not occur until his death bed, when he submitted to the initiation rite of baptism thus nullifying any claims that he was a Christian prior to his death-bed conversion. To call him a “Christian” is not historically accurate as history shows that he used the wide-spread and growing Christian faith in hopes of it being a stabilizing force that would more securely knit together his vast empire.

Christianity did not become the official state religion of Rome until 380 A.D. under Emperor Theodosius, and church sanctioned persecution of Jews did not begin until 528 A.D. under Emperor Justinian. It was in 535 A.D. that the Synod of Clearemont ruled that Jews could not hold public office or execute authority over Christians, and then in 538 A.D. the 3rd and 4th Councils of Orleans prohibited Christians and Jews from marrying and prohibited conversions to Judaism.

Prior to that there were individuals who expressed sometimes grossly anti-Semitic views, and a few of the churches in Spain were very anti-Semitic. But the vast majority of Bishops and Christians, while certainly anti-Rabbinic Judaism in their theology, were not anti-Semitic. Indeed, for the first few centuries the churches of Palestine, and particularly the "Mother Church" at Jeruaslem was given the greater weight of authority in doctrinal matters.

But the Roman Empire and its Emperors were very anti-Semitic long before Rome became Christian. After three rebellions (in 66, 115 and 132 A.D.) and two wars, the Romans began a severe campaign of persecution against the Jews in 135 A.D. forbidding Jews, upon pain of death, from practicing circumcision, reading the Torah, eating unleavened bread at Passover, and many other religious practices of the Jews were prohibited. A temple dedicated to the Roman pagan god Jupiter was erected on the TempleMount in Jerusalem and since Christianity was at this early stage considered a sect of Judaism, another pagan temple was erected on Golgatha. Then in 200 A.D. the Roman Emperor Severus forbade conversions to Judaism. By 250 A.D. both Jews and Christians (which were only then beginning to be viewed as a religion separate from Judaism) were swept up in a wave of persecution when Emperor Decius in January of 250 A.D. issued an edict requiring all citizens to sacrifice to the emperor in the presence of a Roman official and obtain a certificate stating they had done so. Valerian took the throne in 253 and in 257 issued an edict that stepped up the punishment to exile for failing to make the necessary sacrifice and in 258 increased the punishment to death. This persecution affected both Jews and Christians. This remained Roman policy throughout the 3rd century and there are numerous reports of Jews and Christians being expelled from cities throughout the Roman Empire and arrests and confiscation of property in addition to severe limitations on the rights of Jews and Christians to own property or enter into legal contracts.

There is much more that can be said, but I think it is more important to point out that at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., the churches of Palestine were well-represented, and in fact two of the Bishops from the ancient Holy Land, the Bishop of the church at Caesarea and the Bishop of the church at Jerusalem, presided over the Council and after the Council concluded they wrote a letter to all the churches throughout the world stating the decision about Easter:

“The bishops indeed of Palestine, whom we have just mentioned, Narcissus and Theophilus, and Cassius with them, the bishop of the church of Tyre, and Clarus of Ptolemais, and those that came together with them, having advanced many things respecting tradition that had been handed down to them by succession from the apostles, regarding the Passover, at the close of the epistle, use these words: ‘Endeavour to send copies of the epistle through all the church, that we may not give occasion to those whose minds are easily led astray. But we inform you also, that they observe the same day in Alexandria, which we also do; for letters have been sent by us to them, and from them to us, so that we celebrate the holy season with one mind and at one time.”

You notice that in this letter written by the Bishops of Palestine they state that they had “advanced many things respecting tradition that had been handed down to them by succession from the apostles, regarding Passover.” The decision then was not based on any anti-Semitic reasoning, but, according to the churches in ancient Judea and Galilee, it was because this was the tradition that had been handed down to them from the apostles respecting the Easter question and it’s dating. And they also appealed to the fact that this was also the practice of the church at Alexandria, which they had exchanged letters with respecting the time of the observance. The church at Alexandria, the Coptic Church, was founded by Mark, the author of the second Gospel, who was drug from church while celebrating the Lord’s resurrection and for two days was drug behind a horse until he was dead, his body so torn that he was decapitated.

So, as to the reasons for the whole of Christendom determining the Sunday following the Paschal moon to be the correct time to observe the Lord’s resurrection, I trust the explanation of the Bishops of the churches in Palestine far more than I do the explanation of the Roman Emperor who some claim was a Christian but who did not submit to baptism until on his death bed.

Besides, the only churches who insisted on observing the Passover according to the reckoning of the Jews rather than Easter Sunday according to the Metonic cycle was the churches of ancient Babylon.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

Pilgrimer · May 18, 2011

Simon_Templar said:
I must confess that while I'm familiar with the historical arguments for the 5 BC date, I am not terribly familiar with the astronomical arguments for 5 BC. Any good sites you could recommend that review the astronomical events of 5 BC?

Not yet, but give me a little time and I'll share some leads for research with you.

Simon_Templar said:
You are obviously well versed in the history of the early Church time period, but I'm curious if you've spent most of your research effort in secondary/scholarly sources or if you've also read widely in the primary sources, especially the early Christian writers (ie early Church Fathers)?

Actually, my study is pretty much limited to primary sources, I don't trust anyone to not put some kind of "spin" on the data so I prefer to draw my own conclusions from the original material. And yes, I do have copies of all of the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, as well as the Jewish historians Josephus and Philo as well as many of the Roman historians and copies of Imperial edicts and letters. But while I had to gather an extensive library over the past 30 years, most of this documentation is now available online which makes the task of sourcing primary material much, much easier. But beware of Wikipedia, the articles are sometimes authored by very biased writers, as are many websites. I apply an old poem to online research:

Errors, like straws, upon the surface flow
If one would find pearls he must dive below.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

Simon_Templar · May 18, 2011

Pilgrimer said:
Oh, absolutely the language is anti-Semitic, but this is not a letter composed by the church, its a letter composed by the Roman Emperor Constantine. I think you might be making a very common mistake of assuming the Roman Emperor Constantine in some way held authority in or spoke for the church, but thats not the case. Constantine is viewed by some historians as a Christian but was clearly motivated by political considerations, as his own writings admit. Historians are divided on the claims to Christianity of Constantine, but the better opinion is that his actual conversion did not occur until his death bed, when he submitted to the initiation rite of baptism thus nullifying any claims that he was a Christian prior to his death-bed conversion. To call him a Christian is not historically accurate as history shows that he used the wide-spread and growing Christian faith in hopes of it being a stabilizing force that would more securely knit together his vast empire.

Constantine's late baptism is not necessarily a sign that he didn't convert earlier. There was a heretical teaching that had become popular among some Christian groups that held that basically baptism was your one shot at having your sins forgiven and if people committed serious sins after baptism they would/could not be forgiven. This resulted in those who held this teaching often delaying baptism until late in life to avoid the possability of sinning after being baptized. It is not surprising thus that a very 'practical' emperor like Constantine would delay baptism since many of his acts as emperor, in war and suppressing political enemies etc could be of 'questionable morality'.

This teaching was actually used by Tertullian in the early 3rd century as an argument against infant baptism. He disagreed with the Church's practice of baptizing infants on the grounds that they may very likely sin after being baptized, thus they should wait until adulthood when they had a better chance of not sinning afterwards.

Back to Constantine, it is, of course, fruitless and not our place to judge whether he was saved or not. However, I think it is fairly certain that his conversion experience was a genuine experience. His interest in Church affairs went beyond merely trying to use Christianity as a political tool. He had a genuine personal interest in the doctrine of the Church. This is shown by the fact that after the council of Nicea, though he had initially supported the council's decision, he himself became an Arian Christian and began supporting and pushing Arian doctrine in the Church. By the time of his death almost the entire eastern Church was governed by Arian or semi-arian clerics because of Constantine's efforts to push his views.

The irony of course, is that he is constantly 'blamed' today for creating the doctrine of Jesus' divinity and the Trinity.. when in reality he actually worked against both of them for most of his life.

gratefulgrace · May 18, 2011

I am finding this very interesting.

Pilgrimer · May 23, 2011

Simon_Templar said:
Constantine's late baptism is not necessarily a sign that he didn't convert earlier. There was a heretical teaching that had become popular among some Christian groups that held that basically baptism was your one shot at having your sins forgiven and if people committed serious sins after baptism they would/could not be forgiven. This resulted in those who held this teaching often delaying baptism until late in life to avoid the possability of sinning after being baptized. It is not surprising thus that a very 'practical' emperor like Constantine would delay baptism since many of his acts as emperor, in war and suppressing political enemies etc could be of 'questionable morality'.

This teaching was actually used by Tertullian in the early 3rd century as an argument against infant baptism. He disagreed with the Church's practice of baptizing infants on the grounds that they may very likely sin after being baptized, thus they should wait until adulthood when they had a better chance of not sinning afterwards.

Back to Constantine, it is, of course, fruitless and not our place to judge whether he was saved or not. However, I think it is fairly certain that his conversion experience was a genuine experience. His interest in Church affairs went beyond merely trying to use Christianity as a political tool. He had a genuine personal interest in the doctrine of the Church. This is shown by the fact that after the council of Nicea, though he had initially supported the council's decision, he himself became an Arian Christian and began supporting and pushing Arian doctrine in the Church. By the time of his death almost the entire eastern Church was governed by Arian or semi-arian clerics because of Constantine's efforts to push his views.

The irony of course, is that he is constantly 'blamed' today for creating the doctrine of Jesus' divinity and the Trinity.. when in reality he actually worked against both of them for most of his life.

Agreed! But I don't think it was so much Constantine who was the power pushing the Arian view as it was his Bishop, Eusebius of Nicodemia (not to be confused with Eusebius of Caesarea). Eusebius of Nicodemia was a close friend and primary supporter of Arius of Alexander (who started the whole Arian controversy) and this Eusebius spent his entire religious career pushing the Arian view. When Eusebius and his fellow Arians lost the debate and the vote was unanimous at the Nicene Council to accept the Nicene Creed (which was actually written by Athanius, the "Pope" of the Coptic Church in Alexandria, Egypt, not the church at Rome) Eusebius is reported to have said he was signing the Creed "with hand but not with heart." And indeed, he did continue to fight against the Trinitarian view the rest of his life.

But Eusebius had powerful allies, he was a distant relative and close personal friend of Constantine and became his bishop and "spiritual father" not only of the Emperor, but of the entire royal family and the Imperial Court. So it was Eusbeius who was the "power behind the throne" who influenced Constantine and promoted the Arian view to the point that at one time the entire Eastern Church was forced to accept the view by Eusebius removing Trinitarian bishops and installing Arians in their place.

So I'm not sure it's completely correct to credit Constantine with the Arianization of the Eastern Church, he didn't have the authority in the church to remove or to install Bishops, that was the work of Eusebius. And Constantine showed himself to be neutral on the issue at the Nicene Council and only later took up the cause of the Arians. So I think he was being influenced by Eusebius whom we know was a spiritual adivsor to Constantine throughout the Emperor's life as it was Eusebius who baptized Constantine before his death.

Another interesting historical note: The critics of Christianity always lump Constantine in with the "Roman Catholic Church," but in truth Constantine had nothing to do with the church at Rome nor was the "Pope" of Rome the spiritual mentor of Constantine. In fact, the list of bishops and presbyters who attended the Nicene Council is extensive and covers the whole world of Christendom except for one glaring exception ... Victor, the head of the church at Rome, did not attend the Nicene Council due to his advanced age and infirmity. So when you hear critics claiming that "Constantine and the Roman Catholic Church" adopted pagan holidays for Christian observances in order to make Christianity more "palatable" to pagans, you know someone is repeating the baseless claims of Hislop and his followers, not actual historical records.

In fact, contrary to the claims of the critics of Christianity, Victor, the Bishop of the church at Rome, did not have the power to dictate either doctrine or practice to the Christian churches, and that is nowhere better demonstrated than by what happened after the Nicene Council. The Mesopotamian churches still continued to observe Easter based on the timing of the Jewish Calendar (which we have already demonstrated could vary from the true astronomical occurrence by as much as a month) and this enraged Victor. He threatened to "excommunicate" the churches that observed Easter at the wrong time if they did not comply with the unanimous decision made at the Council. However, as Victor and the Church at Rome did not have any power to "excommunicate" anyone, all the rest of the Christian Churches wrote letters to Victor urging him to leave the matter alone, that the peace and fellowship of the churches should be the primary concern. But when Victor continued his condemnation and threatening, Constantine finally told Victor to leave the matter alone and Victor dropped the issue.

So all this talk about how the "Roman Catholic Church" made all these decisons about doctrine and practice and "imposed" them on the rest of Christendom in order to make Christianity more acceptable to pagans, are just more baseless accusations that have nothing to do with actual history but are part of the anti-Roman Catholic Church views that go back to Hislop and this whole "the Roman Catholic Church is Mystery Babylon harlot" error that the Watchtower and other anti-Christian or anti-Catholic groups keep spinning out.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

Simon_Templar · May 24, 2011

Pilgrimer,

I agree regarding Eusebius of Nicodemia. It was undoubtedly his influence at work, and he was the chief architect of the Arianization of the eastern Church. I don't think he could have accomplished it without the support of the emperor.

Historically the Eastern Chruch generally had closer ties to the emperor and the emperor had greater authority within the Church. In the west the Church, I would argue, developed with less involvement (perhaps interference) from the imperial office. I would argue that the Papacy was one reason for that, as well as the fact that the Imperial seat was moved to Constantinople by Constantine. I think that the lesser involvement of the Imperial office in the western Church is probably why Arianism never really made much headway in the west.

Pilgrimer · May 25, 2011

Simon_Templar said:
Pilgrimer,

I agree regarding Eusebius of Nicodemia. It was undoubtedly his influence at work, and he was the chief architect of the Arianization of the eastern Church. I don't think he could have accomplished it without the support of the emperor.

True.

Simon_Templar said:
Historically the Eastern Chruch generally had closer ties to the emperor and the emperor had greater authority within the Church. In the west the Church, I would argue, developed with less involvement (perhaps interference) from the imperial office. I would argue that the Papacy was one reason for that, as well as the fact that the Imperial seat was moved to Constantinople by Constantine. I think that the lesser involvement of the Imperial office in the western Church is probably why Arianism never really made much headway in the west.

I'm afraid that part isn't quite true. After Constantine died and his son Constantius II received the Imperial power, Eusebius continued his efforts to push the Arnian view and with the Emperor's help exiled the Nicene Bishops in the west and installed Arian Bishops. So for a time, both the Eastern and the Western Churches were led by Bishops who were anti-Nicene. It wasn't until Theodosius, who was himself a Trinitarian, rose to the throne that all the efforts of Eusebius were reversed, the Nicene Bishops were recalled and reinstalled, and the forced acceptance of the Arian view was no longer imposed upon the churches. The opinion and decision of the worldwide Christian community expressed at the Nicene Council once more became the accepted doctrine.

Eusebius was a skilled politician but a bane to the Christian churches and perhaps no more bitter legacy can be ascribed to him than the fact that he was the spiritual tutor of the infamous Julian the Apostate!

But the point of all this is to demonstrate that what the critics of Christianity claim is simply not true, the Christians churches were not "blending paganism with worship of God," in these early years and there is ample documentary evidence to prove it.

But for those who may not be well-versed in the first few centuries of Christian history, allow me to provide an admittedly brief sketch:

There is a reason for the old saying that the history of the church is written in the blood of its martyrs. From the very beginning, back in Jerusalem, the small, primitive Christian congregation was persecuted. The Acts of the Apostles records those early days of tragedy, and of triumph, as the new faith struggled to grow beyond it’s narrow Judaic confines and, like the lightning that streaks across the sky from the east to the west and lights up the darkness, the Gospel of Christ reached beyond the borders of Palestine and spread it’s light to every corner of the ancient world . The testimony left of that first generation of Christians and their efforts to fulfill the Great Commission was that they “turned the world upside down” (Acts 17:6) with the preaching of the Gospel of Christ.

Ten years after the Roman/Jewish war, in 81 A.D., in an effort to suppress any further aspirations of a messianic uprising by the Jews, Domitian, the son of Vespasian, the Roman general who had waged Rome’s war against the Jews and defeated them destroying the land of Israel, the city of Jerusalem, and the Temple, bringing the Old Covenant form of worship to an end, systematically sought out and executed all physical descendants of the royal family of David. At this early stage Christianity was still considered a Jewish sect and so Christians were caught up in the persecution along with their Jewish brethren.

For the next 230 years Christians experienced times of terrible persecution, when every imaginable form of coercion and torture was employed to try to force the Christians to “return to the faith of their fathers and their father’s gods.” Certainly many Christians, not able to endure such suffering, renounced their faith and turned from Christ, but there were also those who became “Confessors,” the term used for a believer who withstood torture or died a martyr’s death. The complete list of names is known only to God but they are a very great multitude of men and women from all over the far-flung Roman Empire.

The second persecution, and an especially bloody and violent one, was under Emperor Trajan in 108 A.D.; then another wave under Emperor Verus in 162; another under Severus in 192; Maximus in 235; Decius in 249; Aemillian in 257; Aurelian in 274; and an especially brutal persecution under Emperor Diocletian through what historians call the “bloody edicts” published at Nicomidia in 303 which began one of the worst and most wide-spread persecutions in Christian history.

For eight long years this bloody persecution raged and countless numbers of Christians suffered loss, prison, torture and death for the sake of the Gospel. After the death of Diocletian, in the year 311 A.D., Galerius, who then ruled the Roman Empire, issued the first “Edict of Tolerance,” and for the first time in the three centuries of Christianity’s existence, it was no longer against Roman Law to be a Christian. The reason that Galerius gave for granting tolerance to the Christians is very informative about these Christians who were supposedly “adopting paganism;”

(34.) Among other arrangements which we are always accustomed to make for the prosperity and welfare of the republic, we had desired formerly to bring all things into harmony with the ancient laws and public order of the Romans, and to provide that even the Christians who had left the religion of their fathers should come back to reason (i.e. return to paganism); since, indeed, the Christians themselves, for some reason, had followed such a caprice and had fallen into such a folly that they would not obey the institutes of antiquity (refused to observe the pagan customs) which perchance their own ancestors had first established; but at their own will and pleasure, they would thus make laws unto themselves which they should observe and would collect various peoples in diverse places in congregations. Finally when our law had been promulgated to the effect that they should conform to the institutes of antiquity, many were subdued by the fear of danger, many even suffered death. And yet since most of them persevered in their determination, and we saw that they neither paid the reverence and awe due to the gods nor worshipped the God of the Christians, in view of our most mild clemency and the constant habit by which we are accustomed to grant indulgence to all, we thought that we ought to grant our most prompt indulgence also to these, so that they may again be Christians and may hold their conventicles, provided they do nothing contrary to good order. But we shall tell the magistrates in another letter what they ought to do.
Wherefore, for this our indulgence, they ought to pray to their God for our safety, for that of the republic, and for their own, that the republic may continue uninjured on every side, and that they may be able to live securely in their homes.
(35)This edict is published at Nicomedia on the day before the Kalends of May, in our eighth consulship and the second of Maximinus.
(Eusebius Pamphilus VIII, 17)

It is interesting to note that in this edict of Galerius the reason he gives for lifting the persecution of Christians and restoring their legal rights was that Rome’s many attempts to force them to return to “the religion of their fathers” (paganism) had failed, even though all manner of torture and death had been used to persuade them, and that “since most of them had persevered in their determination” and refused to “pay the reverence and awe due to the gods” that Galerius had decided to grant to them the same indulgence that had been granted to other religious within the lands of the Roman Empire and allow them to worship freely, provided they did nothing to disturb the peace of the Empire. This edict issued by Galerius provides actual testimony to the faithfulness of the Christians in those dark and terrible days and disputes the claim that believers were “blending paganism with the Christian faith” by adopting pagan beliefs and practices. In fact, his edict demonstrates quite the opposite, that Christians, at least most of them, suffered terrible loss and pain and death rather than give any reverence to pagan gods or compromise the Gospel of Christ.

Two years later, in 313 A.D., Constantine issued the Edict of Milan, which then gave Christians back their property rights and ordered that all the property which had previously belonged to Christians, including churches, should be restored to them.

The years that followed was a period of time when the churches “had rest” and, as we Christians are wont to do, as soon as we were free from the threat of imminent death, we turned our attention to fighting over doctrine, the gist of which we have discussed already.

But the important thing to note in all this is that the actual historical documents from that period actually tell a very different story from what the critics of the Christian faith are espousing. Rather than "blending paganism with Christianity," the churches were instead remaining faithful to the Gospel, refusing to join in the pagan festivities and customs of their fathers even to the point of death. There are accounts of what Christians suffered during these times that chills the blood when we read of what these early believers endured.

In fact, allow me to comment on just one man who attended the Council of Nicea. He was an elderly man, and like many of that august assembly, bore in his body the proof of his faithfulness to Christ and refusal to compromise the Gospel by participating in pagan acts. His name was Nicholas of Myra, a city in Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey) near where the Council of Nicea was held. He was a well-known and much beloved and respected old man who had spent his life in the service of the Gospel who had a special love of and ministry to children. He ran an orphanage and it had become customary for him to go out on the eve of the feast of the nativity of Jesus and deliver fruits and sweets to the poor children in his parish. Legend had it that he had even visited the home of a poor family in his parish late one night who had three daughters who had no dowry and were at risk of having to spend their live in prostitution or endured service. So this old Christian man placed a coin in each of their stockings that hung beside the fireplace to dry. After his death Nicholas was made the patron saint of children and is the man known today as Santa Claus.

Not a myth, not a legend, a real flesh and blood man who was more than a saint, he was a Confessor, one who had suffered imprisonment and cruel torture rather than renounce his faith in Christ or submit to acts of pagan worship and who the rest of his life bore in his own body the marks of his faithfulness.

And he wasn't the only one. Many of those who attended the Council of Nicea and defended the doctrine of the pre-existent Christ bore in their bodies the scars and disfigurement and infirmities that they suffered rather than compromise the Gospel of Jesus Christ and commit acts of pagan worship, not even to save their very lives.

And with the proliferation of Christian letters and communications regarding all manner of doctrine and practice, not one word is mentioned anywhere by anyone that any church in all of Christendom was compromising the Gospel and "blending paganism with Christianity" ...

... because that is the myth!

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

Simon_Templar · May 25, 2011

Regarding my comments on Arianism in the west and the difference between east and west regarding imperial influence.

Eusebius may have gotten Arian bishops appointed in the west, but the western Church never really accepted Arianism.

By the time of Constantine, the divisions between east and west in the empire were already pretty significant in administrative terms and perhaps to a certain degree in cultural terms. Rome had ceased to be an imperial center, providing distance from the western seat of power in Ravenna. The western imperial administration also, in general, tended to be weaker than that in the east.

You are correct that Arianism wasn't stamped out until the victory of Theodosius the Great.

After Constantine the empire was effectively divided again by his sons. Again, of course, it is difficult or impossible to say which of the sons truly believed what, but Constantine II in the west supported Trinitarian Christianity and lifted the exile of Athanasius that Eusibius had gotten Constantine I to impose.

Constans, also favored Trinitarian Christianity and supported Athanasius. He eventually took over the entire western empire after Constantine II died during a war between the two.

Constantius II in the east was the only one of the sons of Constantine that supported Arianism. It may be he genuinely believed it, it may be that he supported it primarily because it was already dominant in the east.

Of course, the western empire also collapsed administratively long before the east, which undoubtedly also had a significant impact on the difference in development between the two sides of the Church.

Pilgrimer · May 25, 2011

Simon_Templar said:
Regarding my comments on Arianism in the west and the difference between east and west regarding imperial influence.

Eusebius may have gotten Arian bishops appointed in the west, but the western Church never really accepted Arianism.

By the time of Constantine, the divisions between east and west in the empire were already pretty significant in administrative terms and perhaps to a certain degree in cultural terms. Rome had ceased to be an imperial center, providing distance from the western seat of power in Ravenna. The western imperial administration also, in general, tended to be weaker than that in the east.

You are correct that Arianism wasn't stamped out until the victory of Theodosius the Great.

After Constantine the empire was effectively divided again by his sons. Again, of course, it is difficult or impossible to say which of the sons truly believed what, but Constantine II in the west supported Trinitarian Christianity and lifted the exile of Athanasius that Eusibius had gotten Constantine I to impose.

Constans, also favored Trinitarian Christianity and supported Athanasius. He eventually took over the entire western empire after Constantine II died during a war between the two.

Constantius II in the east was the only one of the sons of Constantine that supported Arianism. It may be he genuinely believed it, it may be that he supported it primarily because it was already dominant in the east.

Of course, the western empire also collapsed administratively long before the east, which undoubtedly also had a significant impact on the difference in development between the two sides of the Church.

Agreed and well said! Based on the decisions made by all the churches at the Council of Nicea, the vast majority of Christians were Trinitarian and the Arian view was forced upon them by a powerful and corrupt Eusebius who had the ear and backing of Constantine and later Constantius II.

Along with the rise of Theodosius, the death of Eusebius at the height of his power served to help turn the tide and allow the views of the vast majority of Christians to once more become the dominate view.

Perhaps all this was something of a prelude to what lay centuries ahead for the church? Even to this day, the one core issue that separates true Christians from pseudo-Christians and anti-Christians is the issue of the nature of Christ as expressed in that beautiful document written so very long ago by men who had endured unspeakable hardship for the faith and earned the right to formulate a creed to which I give my grateful and hearty Amen!

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things, visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance of the Father; God of God, light of light, true God of true God; begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, by whom all things were made, both in heaven and in earth; who for us men, and for our salvation, descended, was incarnate, and was made man, and suffered, and rose again the third day; he ascended into heaven, and shall come to judge the living and the dead: And in the Holy Spirit. But the holy catholic and apostolic Church of God anathematizes those who affirm that there was a time when the Son was not, or that he was not before he was begotten, or that he was made of things not existing: or who say, that the Son of God was of any other substance or essence, or created, or liable to change or conversion.

A modern day version of this beautiful creed, the only one that has been universally agreed upon by all of Christendom, is expressed in one of my favorite hymns:

YouTube - ‪Steve Green- "We Believe"‬&rlm;

Peace and joy in Christ,
Pilgrimer

Pilgrimer · Jun 1, 2011

lismore said:
Why put tomato ketchup on the walls and red paint on hot dogs?

It could just as easily be done right.

The amount of energy that is expended defending an indefensible tradition we could just as easily follow the bible and have an end to it.

Christians who celebrate the birth and resurrection of Jesus are following the Bible, the other part called the New Testament, which after all fulfilled the Old Testament.

So are you suggesting that we should go back to following the Old Testament feasts and commemorating Old Testament events as though Jesus has not come and fulfilled what those events and feasts foreshadowed? Why observe a feast that commemorates the deliverance of Israel from the bondage of Egypt when the whole point of both the historic event and the feast was to foreshadow the deliverance of Jews and Gentiles from the bondage of sin and death which was accomplished by Jesus at Calvary?

It's like going back to living by the blueprint when the building has been finished.

And what can be more "Biblical" than commemorating the mighty works of God through fasting and feasting?

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

Pilgrimer · Jun 1, 2011

probinson said:
Are you suggesting that when I celebrate the resurrection of my Savior, and thank Him for His selfless sacrifice on "the wrong date", that He is displeased with that? That somehow my gift of praise and worship is not what God wants from me since it's on "the wrong date" and would prefer something else?

Actually, if you are celebrating the resurrection by the Christian calendar you are in fact celebrating his resurrection on the actual historical date.

The spring equinox is a fixed event occurring on March 21 every year, year in and year out. But because the lunar cycles (one complete rotation of the earth on its axis) does not correspond to the lunar cycle (the time it takes the earth to make one complete revolution of the sun) the "new moon" after March 21 can vary by as much as a month. So both the Jewish Passover as well as the Christian Easter can vary accordingly. So to be able to calculate in advance when Passover/Easter will occur, a 19 year cycle is used because every 19 years the lunar cycle with match up with the solar cycle. The reason for doing this and not simply observing the night sky is that the new moon/full moon will occur on different days depending on where one is located on the planet. So using the Metonic cycle allows not only Christians but Jews as well to assign the proper date for Passover/Easter in advance so that Jews and Christians the world over can celebrate Passover/Easter together.

Here's a link that explains it a little better than I can:

Paschal Full Moon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

Pilgrimer · Jun 1, 2011

cyberlizard said:
currently day 11 of the omer count.

Steve

And this is where we can get into trouble with our understanding and even worship if we don't understand that we no longer have to "count the days" until the Holy Ghost is poured out ... He's already here! The event that the Jews counted the days until has been fulfilled, accomplished, brought to pass, so what is it you are "counting the days" until?

The only value in studying and learning all these Old Covenant things is the great truths they have to teach us about the New Covenant blessings that we already enjoy! As long as you keep this fundamental truth in mind and recognize that Passover and Firstfruits and Pentecost, as well as Trumpets, Atonement and Tabernacles, and even the Sabbath, were all fulfilled, and look to Jesus' fulfillment for the true meaning, then you will grow in wisdom and understanding. But be careful not to become entangled again with the observance of those things as though it is the observance itself that is the substance of faith rather than the shadow ... the substance is Christ.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

Pilgrimer · Jun 1, 2011

Yitzchak said:
Actually birthdays are of pagan origin also. Many in the early church refused to celebrate birthdays out of Christian conviction . It's public knowledge. Look it up.

If the very angels of heaven thought the birth of Jesus was cause for celebration and rejoicing and praising God then I hardly think God will frown on His children for doing so.

Yitzchak said:
All of the symbols like birthday candles are symbolizing occult and false worship of other gods.

Being an historian and well acquainted with archealogical and textual records, I find it amazing how people can throw around such statements. Can you show me an ancient text or archaeological relic that shows pagans decorating birthday cakes with candles? Celebrating birthdays was in fact common, even among the Jews. Of course, in Biblical times modes of celebrations were very different, and particular birthdays has special significance because at certain ages children reached particular points of spiritual requirements, such as the age of five when boys were required to begin school, and at age 7 they began to study the Law, and at age of 13 when they were obligated to be Torah observant which is why Jesus was taken to Jerusalem when he was 12 in preparation for his Bar Mitzvah, and the age of 20 when boys were considered grown and obligated to military service or to pactice a trade, and the age of 30 when they were of age to enter the ministry, such as Jesus beginning his ministry just after he turned 30.

So birthdays were certainly recognized in Biblical times although the way they were celebrated varied greatly from the parties we have today. But then again, the way Christians celebrate important events today are not really any different from the Biblical days, attendance at church and families getting together and feasting, a very ancient Biblical mode of celebration.

Yitzchak said:
The thing that amazes me, as the opening poster already mentioned is that people after they find out these facts are stubborn as a mule in the face of it.

The same thing can be said of the opposing side, my friend. Even with all the actual Scriptural and historical evidence that has been presented on this thread it is extremely unlikely that the anti-Easter posters have reconsidered their views.

Yitzchak said:
I think the real sin goes deeper than just picking up the heathen customs of the nations around them. Something which the scripture warns against. it speaks to the root of the doctrine of holiness.

I disagree. I think it goes to the root of truth, what is true and what is not true, and it seems that "truth" is on the side of Easter.

Yitzchak said:
My self , I am glad that God is not 99.9999% love , goodness and holiness. I am glad that he is 100% pure. The scripture tells me to keep myself pure and unspotted form the world. To be Holy as he is holy.

So I don't really understand this cavalier attitude that is taken with regards to holiness.

This side issue , as you call it. Takes up many many chapters of the eternal word of God. it seems to me that it takes away from the message when those who profess to follow Christi do not follow his word but brush it aside as a side issue. The issue I am refering to is holiness and being unspoted from the world. The scripture goes as far as to say , friendship with the world is enmity with God.

Holiness is a part of the message. Christians by partaking of the world's sins have lost their opening to be a witness by standing for holiness. the funny thing is that I have traveled quite a bit and every place I have gone it seems like very close to 100% of the unsaved have heard the message of Seventh day Adventists and Jehovah's witnesses. Because down to the last one of them , they will say they are the group that doesn't celebrate birthdays and Christmas and stuff.

This technique of witnessing by our actions was also used in past generations by the church. People refused to go to movies or work on Sunday , kiss on a date. Things like that.

Consider the witness that the world talks about now. Christians are hypocrites who are just as bad as us and yet they tell us we are sinners.

But that's just the point. Of course the world will hate us and say all manner of evil against us. While they are in complete agreement with the Adventists and Witnesses. But being at odds with the world is not a bad thing, it is inevitable and speaks volumes about the truness of Christian doctrine and practice.

Yitzchak said:
The point ,a s I said it much deeper than having a conviction about one particular issue or not. It is the fact that there are no convictions about any issue.

That's a rather broad and totally unfair statement. If Christians didn't have convictions, we wouldn't be on these boards defending our beliefs.

Yitzchak said:
I would like to know , how and when the message of not loving the world and being a seperate people is lived out ?? it seems like the teaching is do whatever you want and just put God's name to it. To my thinking that violates one of the The ten Commandments which says not to carry his name in vain. and not to make images of other gods that we put in front of His face.

This professed lack of sincerity in the worship of these images that God commanded against really rings hollow when those confronted about such things have a mocking tone to their response.

These are deadly serious issues. If you really think that Romans 14 applies . It seems to be the favorite passage of those who engage in pagan holidays, then you would follow that scripture and not rub it in the nose of those who have convictions against it. Can't have it both ways.

I think it exceeds the bound of Christian freedom to have a cavalier attitude about worldly and pagan celebrations. Things have gone far past the question of whether you can buy the Easter candy on sale the week after the holiday.

But for the sake of argument, let's say you do have that much freedom in Christ . the what of the passages which instruct against a careless and inconsiderate use of that freedom.

You are posting in a thread posted by a Christian who is very sincerely trying to live holy. Your post seems more concerned with winning an argument than it is with respecting this sister's convictions.

I doubt that was your intention. But take a step back and think about it. Wouldn't it be a better response to agree with the basic idea of holiness and simply state that you work out your holiness in a different way than them rather than putting down their attempts to live wholeheartedly for God.

But that wasn't the basic premise of the poster who started this thread. The basic premise was that Christianity has gotten the date wrong for Jesus' resurrection and instead is celebrating a pagan holiday and honoring a pagan goddess with pagan customs contrary to the Bible and displeasing to God. Is that not the premise of this thread? That Christians have become idolaters while the poster alone has the "correct date"?

Yitzchak said:
Parading your participation in pagan rituals is not a virtue. If you want to speak about your freedom in Christ , then that can be done without putting down someone's convictions.

It seems to me that you've got things rather backwards. It is the anti-Easter posters who are doing all the "putting down someone's convictions" while the pro-Easter posters are defending their views.

For example, saying that Christians are "partaking of the world's sins," and that we just "do whatever you want and just put God's name to it," and that we "make images of other gods that we put in front of His face" and that we "lack sincerity," and claiming that Christians are "parading your participation in pagan rituals" with absolutely no proof or even a reasonable basis for the claim that there is in fact anything pagan about Easter is a fairly good example. "Blending paganism with worship of God," is another example, as well as claiming that the Christian's mode of worship is "displeasing to God" is actually more than just "putting down someone's convictions," it's actually accusing all of Christendom of at best heresy and at worse idolatry.

And with not one shred of actual Scriptural or historical evidence ...

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

Pilgrimer · Jun 1, 2011

psalms 91 said:
If this is so then why does God say that there are feasts to be celebrated eternally? Why does it say that during the millenial nations will go up to Jerusalem? What feasst dioes that come from? It isnt Easter. The problem is that when it is biblically sound and presented that way people do not want to admit that tradition is wrong. Anything not supported by the bible is the traditions of men.

But you are missing the real message of these feasts.

First of all, it's not possible to observe the feasts according to the Law because everything that God provided for the observance of the Law has been removed. You can't observe Passover according to the commandments of the Law because there is no longer a Temple, or an altar, or a sacrifice, or a priest to offer it according to the Law. There is a reason that God removed all those things and brought the Old Covenant form of worship to an end ... because they were types and figures which foreshadowed the person and work of Christ.

So to understand what "message" the Law has for us today who do no live under the Law but under Grace, you must seek to understand what those old festivals have to teach us about Jesus and our relationship with God under the New Covenant.

When the prophet Zechariah spoke of God's people "coming up to Jerusalem" during the reign of Christ over God's Kingdom or else they will have no rain, he wasn't talking about people coming up to the old earthly city of Jerusalem, he was talking about people, Jew and Gentile, coming up to the New Jerusalem, the city whose builder and maker is God, the city of the Great King, that city whose gates are never shut day nor night, that city where the Father and the Son even now sit enthroned in glory, the Son reigning over the Father's Kingdom which has been made subject to the Son. And any one who does not come up to this city, the New Jeruaslem, that Heavenly City, upon them there will be no rain, and please don't tell me you have never heard the Gospel talk about rain being symbolic of the Holy Spirit? In fact, did you know that at the feast of Tabernacles, on the eighth "great" day of the feast, there was a very important ceremony that was performed called the "Water-Pouring," at which the High Priest would pour out a pitcher of water on the altar and the Jews gathered in the Temple would pray and ask God to send the rain, the life-giving rain, without which they could not plow the earth and sow their crops. Their lives depended on the rains that began in the fall (the early or former rains) to soften the earth that had become baked hard during the summer dry season, and until the rains came they could not go out into the fields and begin to plow and plant next year's crop. This Water-Pouring ceremony was so important to the people that one year an apostate priest, rather than pouring the water on the altar as an offering, instead poured the water on the ground. The people became so infuriated that they rushed into the priest's court and took the man outside the Temple and stoned him (I think I have the conclusion of the matter right).

And in the Gospel of John we have this testimony: that in the fall before Jesus' passion, he had gone up to Jerusalem for Tabernacles, and on the eighth day, the last great day of the feast, when the Water-pouring ceremony was being peformed and the Jews were gathered in the Temple, Jesus stood up in the midst of the crowd and cried:

"If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)" John 7:2, 37-39

And indeed, those who do not come up to the New Jerusalem (enter the New Covenant) upon them there is no rain (the Holy Spirit is not poured out).

There is a lesson to be learned from these Old Covenant types and figures and they have much to teach us about this New Covenant that we live under. But the primary lesson is that when we are "in Christ," we are in fact living out the real meaning of all these old earthly types, which are now observed not according to the letter of the Law, but the Spirit. So whenever you bow your head in prayer, in the spirit you ascend up to the New Jerusalem, that heavenly city, and by the blood of Christ you can now enter into the Holy of Holies, the very throneroom of God, and can worship the Father and the Son in person.

Don't look to the old earthly Jerusalem, God no longer lives there, it's just a place of dust and shadows now. Turn your eyes toward heaven, the true Tabernacle of God, and "enter into his gates with thankgiving and into his court with praise."

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

Date of the Resurrection

Not all who wander are lost

Junior Member

Not all who wander are lost

Junior Member

Not all who wander are lost

Veteran

Junior Member

Junior Member

Not all who wander are lost

Contributor

Junior Member

Not all who wander are lost

Junior Member

Not all who wander are lost

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency