And with regards to "Internet polemics", I am sure you know a thing or two in detail about what you are asserting with regards to Pascha (Easter).
I do, yes. I also reject the Regulative Principle for, among other reasons, it would preclude our having this very conversation.
Yah right, you mean a gospel about rabbits and easter eggs.
No, actually; the Orthodox do not employ liturgical rabbits or painted eggs in our divine services.
Ever wondered how that even tied in with the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ and where it came from? One comes to mind, pagans who worship the sun. And definitely not the Son.
Actually no; sun worshippers have rather distinct beliefs. And by the way, before you contemplate mentioning the persecuted Yazidis, they are
certainly not sun worshippers. There is mich reason to suspect they were at one time Gnostic Christians, probably Ophites or Carpocratians, whose doctrines took their present form, such as it is, under the influence of the Sufi mystic Sheikh Adi.
Again, more assertions from outside of the Holy Bible.
You asked which Christ I receive. My answer: the one described in the canonical New Testament.
And who is St. Athanasius the Great?
He defended the deity of our Lord, which you have affirmed a belief in (hence my query regarding John 1:1), in the face of an attempt by Arius, under the influence of Hellenic pagan philosophy, to claim our Lord is a creature. He also gave us the list of 27 books which most people regard as the authoritative canon of the New Testament.
Earlier lists either lacked various books he included, or alternately included various works of dubious psuedepigrapha, like 1 Barnabas.
Another one of your many pagan teachers?
I have no pagan teachers.
It would not be an assertion if you were to tell me that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul and Peter wrote about this Paschal Encyclical.
Herein you raise an interesting point: the reason this encyclical was needed is the proliferation of Gnostic apocrypha; the Christian Church needed a canon to define what was and was not apostolic Scripture. Because the holy apostles and evangelists largely composed their respective works apart from one another, often in diverse cities at opposite ends of the Roman Empire, none of them contain an index enumerating which other writings we now consider to be the "New Testament" were to be regarded as authoritative. There was a Gospel, delivered orally at forat, which later was transcribed in four different ways by four different people, reinforced by instructions from Ss. Paul, Peter, John, Jude, James and the author of Hebrews.
So we are dependent on a progression of later authorities to tell us that, for example, the Gospel of John is a valid and authoritative document, whereas the Gospel of Thomas is a spurious psuedepigraphical Manichaean forgery.
Let me give you a piece of advice, spend more time reading the Holy Bible and pray to God that He enlightens you with His Holy Spirit and stop reading books that are of the pagan kind.
I don't generally read books "of the pagan kind," except for the purpose of studying what pagans believed, so as to contrast those beliefs with the Christian faith. And on this basis, I am able to reject your claim that Pascha is pagan as being baseless, by comparing it with actual Pagan beliefs, which are quite diverse and generally obscure, so that is not in fact an easy task.
