The Bible nowhere states that the day Christ arose was Easter. Have you ever considered that Easter comes at a different time each year? Then how could He be crucified on one date one year and on another date another year? That does not make good sense!

We do not find the actual festival of Easter associated with the resurrection of Christ until the year 300 A.D.

Easter was simply a spring festival to the goddess Eastra or Astarte, which came around the time of the Jewish passover, and was later incorporated in the backslidden church.

Wopik:

None of what you've just said matters in the least bit. Do you realize this?

The day chosen for the celebration of an event is much less important than the meaning of the event celebrated. If the exact day were essential to know, then it would have been retained just as surely as other memories of Jesus were. Nobody really gives a rat's behind what day Jesus died, but that he did and rose again somewhere on the fricken Roman calendar! Any Bible-believing Christian knows this, or they wouldn't be able to include daily devotion to a resurrected Christ in their personal lives without knowing the exact day of the event, the length of his hair, who his cousins were, and other minutiae that no published Biblical scholar considers worth treating.

JB . . . are you really wopik? I officially state my case . . . JB is disguised as wopik just to get us pissed off about metaphysical nonsensicals. If not, then please wopik, try to ask questions people can respond to with some paucity of real world relevance.

Global Salvation and the death of Jesus are "real world relevancy".

Paul told us what day to celebrate Jesus' death: "Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us, therefore let us keep the feast; not with old leaven neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincereity and truth" (1 Corinthians 5:7-8).

God help us to understand!

Ok, I get it. Wopik is a reincarnated Pharisee. I can see him now, stalking Jesus over legalistic hairs, condemning Him for feeding the hungry on the Sabbath.

Demanding worship on the Sabbath is tantamount to that day's literal meaning, something which Jesus revolutionized with His own life. You are Wopik, as the religious of that day did, "Straining on a nat, and swallowing a camel."

This kind of rigidness doesn't come from devotion, but from fear and arrogance.

wopik, look up when the Jewish Passover is celebrated and you'll see that the date changes every year. That's because it's correlated with the lunar cycle and the vernal equinox. To wit: Easter is the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox. Obviously, that will be a different date each year.

Hope that helps to explain part of your query. As for the rest, I think w.c. has provided some helpful info.

This kind of rigidness doesn't come from devotion, but from fear and arrogance.

Aren't Sunday worshippers rigid about Sunday?

--------------

...look up when the Jewish Passover is celebrated and you'll see that the date changes every year.

Yes, Phil, the date changes every year on our calendar, but it's always Nisan 14 -- on the Hebrew calendar.

Easter can be anywhere from March to April on our calendar; not very precise.

Thanks for your comments.

Easter is the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox. Obviously, that will be a different date each year.

Paul gives another way of calculating Christ's death: "Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us: therefore let us keep the feast...." (1 Cor. 5:7-8).


----------------------

Demanding worship on the Sabbath is tantamount to that day's literal meaning, something which Jesus revolutionized with His own life.

w.c. --

Jesus' statement that � the Sabbath was made for MAN� (Mark 2:27-28), presents a glorious and far-reaching maxim for the permanent establishment of the Sabbath and of the true FREEDOM of its observance.

Jesus further explains that HE is Lord even of the Sabbath day, not surely to abolish it -- that truly were a strange lordship, especially just after saying it was made and instituted for MAN --but to own it, to interpret it, to preside over it and to ennoble it.

Jesus breathed a new air of liberty and love into the Day, giving the Sabbath new life and freedom in His Gospel.

You are right, w.c., feed the hungry and heal the sick on the Sabbath! The Sabbath is all about FREEDOM!

The Jewish passover is celebrated on a different date each year, as I mentioned.

Sounds like you're worried about doing the right things on the right days. I agree with w.c. that it doesn't really matter. Seems you disagree with this. I hope you find what you're looking for.

Thanks much for your comments.

Christian Holidays -- click on picture.

"Aren't Sunday worshippers rigid about Sunday?"


No, wopik, we're not. Most communions of the Christian church have weekday services, and some Saturday gatherings as well. Noone is viewed as deficient because they don't show up on a particular day. The frequency of Sunday participation probably has more to do with the weekend in terms of Monday-Friday employment than anything else.

Just a final thought: if all matters of uncertainty could be resolved, then faith would hardly have much importance. We're called to be conscienable and reflective, not perfect and obsessive, and this calling is to a God who loves us and sees and accepts our imperfections, and limited powers of knowledge, just as mature parents relate to the growth of their children. Knowledge filters itself through human subjectivity; as such, there is basically nothing truly objective, in the scientific sense, to grasp with any finality.

Your posts have always had an evagelical air to them. I don't think you'll find many here at Shalom willing to give up their interpersonal experience of God over the kind of details you raise. Most of us probably view those issues as a waste of time. For myself, and probably many others who exchange here, uncertainty is an opening to God, not an evil to be eradicated toward some fantasy of perfect knowledge. In fact, if we didn't admit of uncertainty, there wouldn't be real dialogue, only beating each other over the head out of fear.

The frequency of Sunday participation probably has more to do with the weekend in terms of Monday-Friday employment than anything else.

Saturday(Sabbath) is on the weekend, too. Some folks just prefer that day instead. It's not that I'm rigid, it's just that I feel better about observing days that are "divinely instituted". Every religion has "days". I just happen to feel that the "feasts of the Lord" (Lev. 23) are all about Christ -- and therefore Christian. I believe Paul and the NT support that.

Wopik:

Here are excerpts from your posts related to the importance of celebrating Eastern on a particular day and calendar:

"Easter was simply a spring festival to the goddess Eastra or Astarte, which came around the time of the Jewish passover, and was later incorporated in the backslidden church."

"Global Salvation and the death of Jesus are "real world relevancy."

"Some folks just prefer that day instead. It's not that I'm rigid, it's just that I feel better about observing days that are "divinely instituted". Every religion has "days". I just happen to feel that the "feasts of the Lord" (Lev. 23) are all about Christ -- and therefore Christian. I believe Paul and the NT support that."

____________________

Your last post suggests some degree of respect and openness toward the choices of others who hold different views than you do regarding the life of the church. However, I still wonder . . . . rigidness would include any notion that excludes other Christians based on a doctrine that few of them hold as of central importance. My sense is that you actually believe the salvation of another person who loves Christ collapses around such issues.

In all of this, I just don't buy it that God is more interested in worship on certain days and is inattentive or even angry if we get that wrong. Doesn't fit my image of God at all.

Personally, I think it's part of the genius of the early church to co-opt pagan feast days and to "Christianize" them. What's wrong with that, especially if a connection is made to some idea or notion that was fulfilled in Christ? The early evangelists were intent on showing how Jesus fulfilled the Jewish Scriptures; why limit that to Judaism? Christ fulfills the longings expressed in other religious traditions as well.

What's I find absurd to the max is the notion that because a pagan feast day was co-opted, then Christians are somehow participating in the pagan rite by celebrating a Christian feast day at that time. . . like that day hasn't been redeemed and forever belongs to the devil. If the content of the rite and the intent of the community is in line, then the date is of no consequence, as far as I'm concerned, and good for the early Church to "take over" certain feast days. That was just plain smart of them--probably an inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

(Not suggesting that you support some of those ideas I'm objecting to, wopik, but I do see evidence of them on that web site you referred us to.)

"Absurb to the max . . . "

"Ah baloney . . . . "


Watch yourself Phil. It is Lent, you know.

Phil and w.c. --

Personally, I think it's part of the genius of the early church to co-opt pagan feast days and to "Christianize" them. What's wrong with that, especially if a connection is made to some idea or notion that was fulfilled in Christ?


Does it matter at all that the Lord told His people not to seek out the religious ways of the heathen, inorder to do the same to Him?

"....inquire not after their gods, saying, 'How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise.' You shall not do so unto the LORD your God:......" (Deuteronomy 12:30-32, kjv).

-------------------

When we partake of the symbols He instituted of His broken body and shed blood, we are not keeping the Old Covenant Passover. We are IMBIBING OF THE SYMBOLS OF CHRIST'S DEATH! Paul wrote, "Purge out therefore the old leaven [spiritually], that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened [physically]. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:

"Therefore let us keep the feast [of Unleavened Bread!], not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth (I Corinthians 5:7, 8).

This powerful statement was written to the GENTILE church in Corinth, approximately THIRTY YEARS after the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ! These were not "Jews." Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, not the Jews! Unless this passage was read DURING THE DAYS OF UNLEAVENED BREAD, it is in direct contradiction within its own words! He could not have chided them so vigorously about being "puffed up" spiritually (I Corinthians 4:6, 18, 19; 5:2) and then said "as ye are unleavened," unless he had meant they were observing the Days of Unleavened Bread! He was urging them to become unleavened spiritually, just as they HAD already become unleavened physically!

Wopik:

I'd ask you the same question again, as posted earlier . . .


"However, I still wonder . . . . rigidness would include any notion that excludes other Christians based on a doctrine that few of them hold as of central importance. My sense is that you actually believe the salvation of another person who loves Christ collapses around such issues."

Is this your opinion?


Wopik:

It isn't for anybody here at Shalom to tell you what to believe, but you are using this forum, most of the time, as an evangelical pulpit. You ask questions that you already have your own answers for, which isn't even an honest use of rhetorical device. You don't seem to learn anything from exchanges on this forum. Nobody really wants to interact exstensively with that, as far as I can tell. Perhaps you feel it your duty to preach to us, but I don't believe that is welcome, since it doesn't amount to real dialogue. I'd have to defer to Phil on that last statement, but it is my sense of things here at Shalom.

Many of us are, Phil included, happily involved in what you have referred to as the "backslidden church." The accusation isn't so much an insult to me as it is a non sequitur for those of us who already embrace various church traditions you seem to oppose. So if your intention is to evangelize, rather than raise questions and explore together with others, being honest about the partial knowledge we all share, I'd rather you not loiter on this forum. Just my opinion.

Does it matter at all that the Lord told His people not to seek out the religious ways of the heathen, inorder to do the same to Him?

No one is doing that in celebrating Easter. Read my post above, especially the point about content and intent. It's ridiculous to suggest that Christians are "seeking out the religious ways of the heathen" in celebrating Christmas and Easter as we do. Sorry, it just is.

w.c. is right. Your questions often aren't sincere, but are "leading"--naught but set-ups, really, to provide an opening for you to preach the gospel according to wopik.

So why did you pick on this forum? Trying to "save" us ignorant Catholics from ourselves?

Wopik:

One last way of putting it:

Most everyone here at Shalom appears open to being wrong, experienced as fresh thinking. So when we challenge one another, being open to being wrong ourselves, it creates dialogue, which can include argument, disagreement, etc . . . But your posts have been pure ad hominems.

It is more Phil's area, but the Bible among Catholics, post Vatican II, isn't considered the entire embodiment of Christian truth. The church's ongoing development beyond the first century is considered essential for any understanding of those texts. This is also the basis for ongoing dialogue.

My reason for saying so isn't to challenge you to apologetics or epistemology, but to say that few on this forum probably share your view of scripture as the definitive and sole source of truth, and don't find it very interesting to go round in circles over such matters. But surely you know this, since many of us are even open to other religions as a source of revelation. So please go elsewhere to preach, or develop different habits of posting.

Thanks for your comments and discussion! I appreciate the opportunity.

However, I still wonder . . . . rigidness would include any notion that excludes other Christians based on a doctrine that few of them hold as of central importance.

I just don't buy it that God is more interested in worship on certain days and is inattentive or even angry if we get that wrong. Doesn't fit my image of God at all.

This is sort of the point I am trying to make:

"And it shall come to pass in the day of the LORD'S sacrifice, that I will punish the princes, and the king's children and all such as are clothed with strange apparel" (Zephaniah 1:7-8).

"And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment: And he says to him, 'Friend, how did you come in here without wedding clothes?' And he was speechless.

"Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into the outer darkness; in that place there shall be weepiing and gnashing of teeth'. For many are called, but few are chosen" (Matt. 22: 11-13).

wopik, I think you've misinterpreted that passage from Matthew. It's about the "garment of faith," not avoiding worship on days once used by "the heathen."

Your recent post still shows no consideration of previous feedback given. Do you see our p.o.v.? Can you state where you disagree, and why?

Wopik:

You still haven't answered the simple question put to you. There's no need to answer indirectly. The question is based on my earlier post in response to yours:

"However, I still wonder . . . . rigidness would include any notion that excludes other Christians based on a doctrine that few of them hold as of central importance. My sense is that you actually believe the salvation of another person who loves Christ collapses around such issues."

Just answer this, as a question, "Yes," or "No."

w.c. and Phil --

Actually, I don't lose any sleep over what days people observe in the name of Jesus the Christ. I got on your web site to try and discuss why I think the biblical holidays are still valid: because they are all about the Christ.

Keeping these days doesn't save us. Keeping Saturday or Sunday doesn't save anyone.

I further went on to discuss why I think Paul still observed those biblical holidays as a new creature in Christ. I further discussed and showed how Paul taught other Christians to observe the Passover and days of Unleavened Bread - so they could be unleavened spiritually as they were unleavened physically.

You don't have to agree; you obviously don't. You and most others think the exta-biblical holidays are just fine. That's OK with me, even though I don't agree.

----------------------------------------

On the salvation issue --

God will save whom He wants. No one can have the audacity to say who is saved and who isn't. God looks into the heart of a man.

I agree with Paul when he says, there never was a law that could give life (Gal. 3:21). That was true even in OT times as well as New.

Historically, from reading Scripture, the LORD tends to prefer when His people keep His sanctified times - His "appointed times" - the time He has made holy. You think this has changed in the NT era; I don't.

Peter kept the Lord's "appointed times". One example is Acts 2 - Pentecost [OT holy day only (?) ].

On the day of Pentecost [oh, one of God's appointed times], Peter made a great speech (Acts 2).

I'm discussing; if you don't agree, please rebut.

Why is it wrong (in your opinion) for worshipers of the Lord Jesus to keep His "appointed times" ?

wopik, there's nothing wrong with keeping "appointed times," which is what we do in celebrating Easter, Christmas, and other holidays, including Pentecost.

You have this idea that there are clearly defined "appointed times" and that God prefers that people keep them. This notion, plus your earlier point about "seeking the religious ways of the heathen" tells me where you're coming from. I've tried to explain that we are not making use of heathen religious "practices," and I will now add that I find nothing in the New Testament about God indicating preferred times for anything--nothing like the Old Testament. You mention Peter keeping Pentecost, and we do the same. For Peter at that time, he was doing so as Jew with no intent to ever be anything but a Jew; that doesn't indicate something new or something that Christians should emulate. I challenge you to find one place in the New Testament where Christians are commanded or encouraged to keep certain special feast days. There's nothing of the sort. The only thing you'll find is Jewish Christians keeping Jewish feast days during the early days of the Church when Jewish converts did not understand themselves to be in a different religion. Note that the Council of Jerusalem laid no such requirements on Gentile converts.

You say that these kinds of questions don't bother you much, but see how much you've pressed this issue and others of a similar nature.

Thanks for your comments.

I challenge you to find one place in the New Testament where Christians are commanded or encouraged to keep certain special feast days. There's nothing of the sort.

I consider Paul encouraging the Corinthian Christians to keep the "feast of Unleavened bread" --

"Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us: therefore, let us keep the feast...." (1 Cor. 5:7-8).

----------

Quoting from: The New Bible Dictionary, Eerdmans Publishing Co. --

article: Corinthians, Epistle to the.


"An accession of strength to the Christian party in the arrival of Silas and Timothy, with good news from Macedonia, brought renewed strenght to Paul's preaching. This provoked fierce opposition from the Jewish community, culminating in a breach between Paul and the synagogue. Henceforth his Corinthian ministry was predominantly Gentile; but his first centre was next door to the hostile synagogue, in the house of a Gentile God-fearer, Titius Justus."

To quote from another section: it's [church's] composition ---

"Corinth would, then, seem to have been a fairly large church (Acts xvii. 8, 10).....It had some Jews in its membership, but it was predominantly Gentile and ex-pagan in character, with a significant proportion of members from vicious backgrounds (1 Cor. vi. 11). Judaizing tendencies, the bane of churches where members had been trained through the synagogue, seem not to have been a major issue in Corinth: they are present (1 Cor. xii. 18) but incidental;"
(page 254).

1 Cor. 5: 7-8: "Christ, our passover, has been sacrificed; let us celebrate the feast, then, by getting rid of all the old yeast of evil and wickedness, having only the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth."

If you're going to quote Scripture, quote the whole passage and give the whole context. Nothing there about celebrating the old feast days. Sorry!

I don't see the relevance of the commentaries you quoted. Paul is looking at the old feast days as meaphors for spiritual and moral virtues. I don't think pagan influences are driving his reflections on this matter.