Question The real meaning of Easter?

[rynnor]

Big fight over this on wikipedia between the christians and those who espouse a pagan origin for the festival.

Talk:Easter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In my opinion I favour a pagan origin for the following reasons:

If it was to commemorate the death and supposed ressing of JC it would be on a specific day each year - instead it floats in a complicated calculation against the lunar month.

Pagans are associated with lunar festivals but christians arent.

Next the bible doesnt actually give any date information for the ressurection so its likely they tacked it onto an existing celebration.

The name Easter - lots of debate over this but it certainly isnt from a christian root.

Easter Eggs/Hares - symbols of fertility - some christians have tried to link the egg to ressurection but its nonsense - the egg is the symbol of new life it doesnt come back from the dead

On a more general note springtime with the birth of new livestock would always be an important time to primitive farming communities and so many forms of 'spring festival' have arisen and Easter should no doubt be seen in this context.

 

[xane]

YouTube - Eddie Izzard - Easter and Christmas

 

[Turamber]

Undoubtedly the trappings of bunnies and eggs have pagan origins. But the date for Jesus' death and resurrection is pretty clear in the Bible. What you have is an act of religious syncretism - combining old Pagan beliefs with Christianity, happened a lot after the Roman Empire made Christianity (or its bastardised version of it) the official religion.

Many of the practices and trappings of the churches, particularly the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, have come from the Roman pagan past. You might want to check out why many rostrums in churches have eagles on them for instance, or the latin titles the pope has.

Personally I go to a commemoration of the last supper, but I leave all the rabbits and eating of chocolate to other people. Not least because I am allergic to rabbits and I'm plenty fat enough.

 

[Turamber]

If it was to commemorate the death and supposed ressing of JC it would be on a specific day each year - instead it floats in a complicated calculation against the lunar month.

Should have read your post in full, sorry.

Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian. The Jews of the first century used a lunar calendar. The last supper is identified clearly as taking place on Nisan 14th on their lunar calendar, as it was held on the Jewish passover. Passover - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unfortunately afaik nobody uses lunar calendars these days, and haven't for a long time. So a church council set the celebration for a fixed date on the solar calendar. For their own reasons they preferred it to be set on a Friday to Sunday axis, and not to float to the specific days - not least because of the difficulties in reconciling the lunar calendar to the solar calendar.

I believe the eastern and western churches use different calendars however, so they use different fixed dates for easter - but for the same reason, because lunar calendars are no longer used.

You may want to look into this further as there are plenty of historical and verifiable facts here, it isn't something open to conjecture tbh.

 

[ECA]

You may want to look into this further as there are plenty of historical and verifiable facts here, it isn't something open to conjecture tbh.

The resurrection of the son of god isn't open to conjecture?

:lol:

 

[Turamber]

The resurrection of the son of god isn't open to conjecture?

No -- the origins of Easter and why it is set to the date it is and the practices that are associated with it. Do try to keep up, there's a good chap.

 

[rynnor]

No -- the origins of Easter and why it is set to the date it is and the practices that are associated with it. Do try to keep up, there's a good chap.

Ah - the linking to jewish lunar months makes sense - as to the current system I seem to remember an awful lot of historical 'discussion' over it between different sections of the Christian church.

Interestingly I was recently reading a history of the byzantine empire and it discussed the schism that broke up the christian church into the eastern side centred at byzantium and the western church run from Rome.

Apparently the early christian texts were all in greek and the eastern side used the greek version (edit - because they used greek as a trading language) but the western side had it translated into latin.

However a mis-translation gave rise to the concept of the holy trinity and the two sides have been split ever since - bit silly really

 

[old.Tohtori]

It's an ancient f*ckfest, pure and simple, christians and their day stealing ways can go f*ck off.

 

[fettoken]

It's an ancient f*ckfest, pure and simple, christians and their day stealing ways can go f*ck off.

Hmm yes. I am quiet suprised so many holidays from the bible still exists in "modern society". Even if it's for many, just of an commercialistic value. I agree with you Toht, its an ancient f*ckfest, which now annoys me to no end that it still exists, just because it ties to religion. Tho, the kids love it (and so did i).

 

[Turamber]

However a mis-translation gave rise to the concept of the holy trinity and the two sides have been split ever since - bit silly really

Over the years a few differences of opinions over scripture, tradition and worship arose between the Catholics and the Orthodox. The original and biggest sticking point is the understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit.

In the West it was tought that the Holy Spirit "proceeded" from Father & Son, but in the East it was tought that it "proceeded" from Father alone. I can't pretend to understand the theological debate it caused but ultimately the Fourth Crusade was sanctioned and Constantinople, which had been an impenetrable barrier to the forces of Islam in the East, was burned by other "Christians" and ultimately Asia Minor, which had been Christianised since early times became part of the Muslim Turkish (originally the Seljuk and then later Ottoman) Empire.

 

[rynnor]

but ultimately the Fourth Crusade was sanctioned and Constantinople, which had been an impenetrable barrier to the forces of Islam in the East, was burned by other "Christians" and ultimately Asia Minor, which had been Christianised since early times became part of the Muslim Turkish (originally the Seljuk and then later Ottoman) Empire.

One thing I hadnt realised is that Constantinople actually survived the Fourth crusade and rebuilt its empire for a few hundred years more until it finally fell to the Turks.

If it hadnt been for the bulwark of the Byzantine empire Europe would almost certainly be a Muslim state today.

Oh and its apparently wrong to call them the Byzantine Empire as they referred to themselves as the Roman Empire and carried on many of its traditions.

 

[Turamber]

Indeed, the term "Byzantine Empire" was coined about 200 years later by French historians. If you'd said that to a member of the Empire they would have thought you were referring to a person who lived in Constantinople itself.

The rebuilt Empire was a shadow of its former self - having to rebuild/renovate the capital emptied its treasury and it was on the verge of bankruptcy right up until 29 May 1453 when Mehmet seized the City and the last Emperor was killed.

 

[xane]

If it hadnt been for the bulwark of the Byzantine empire Europe would almost certainly be a Muslim state today.

The Byzantine Empire played little in resistance against the Islamic Empire, the schism and the endless war with Persian made it easy prey. If the Eastern Empire was stronger then Judea would not have fallen and there would have been no need for the Crusades. Christian Europe successfully defended against Islam at Poitiers-Tours in c.8th and at Vienna in c.16th, both were "Western Christian" conflicts.

It's worth noting that although it's obvious Christianity absorbed many pagan rites as its own, that has essentially been the strength of the religion in its "progressive" guise, there has always been a schism between enlightened Christianity and conservative doctrine, the true church probably lies somewhere between the two.

One of the interesting points about Easter is that it is rare example of how religion actually conspired with science. The desire to get Easter as accurate as possible eventually led to the modern calendar with its leap year. The main reason why the Orthodox church celebrated Easter (and Christmas) differently was its reluctance to use a calendar endorsed by a Western Pope.

 

[Roo Stercogburn]

The meaning of Easter, like everything else, is anything you choose it to be.

So if you want to use Easter to celebrate the day that the pink sock aliens colonised the South Pole, then thats what it means.

All this bickering is just people trying to enforce their views on others.

Ultimately a pointless and meaningless excercise.

 

[rynnor]

Ultimately a pointless and meaningless excercise.

Not entirely - I learned about the Jewish lunar month and we had a interesting discussion on the Eastern Roman Empire

On Xanes point I think the key time for the Eastern Roman Empire preventing the Islamisation of Europe was in the 7th century when it swept through the Arab tribes who then absorbed the Persians and only the Eastern Roman Empire prevented them taking Western Europe.

It provided a breathing space for a few centuries before the West could organise itself.

 

[xane]

I think the key time for the Eastern Roman Empire preventing the Islamisation of Europe was in the 7th century when it swept through the Arab tribes who then absorbed the Persians and only the Eastern Roman Empire prevented them taking Western Europe.

It provided a breathing space for a few centuries before the West could organise itself.

But that was after at least 3rd of the Eastern Empire had fallen to the emerging Islamic caliphate, it never recovered and it was only a matter of time before it would be overrun.

The real turning point came in the Western Empire with Charles Martel and the Reconquista of Iberia, which caused a power shift in the Islamic Empire, affecting the Middle East, and the that was probably the real reason it stopped advancing. The Crusades, again from the West, put Islam on the back foot, but once the caliphate stabilised and the Ottomans gained control, the Holy Land and the Eastern Empire quickly fell.

 

[Turamber]

The Byzantine Empire played little in resistance against the Islamic Empire

What nonsense. You may want to do some research into the reign of Constantine IV for example, and the defence against an all out attack by the Caliphate which had him lauded throughout Europe.

The quickest route from Arabia to Europe would have been through Constantinople, yet the Byzantines repelled attack after attack and only the ultimate betrayal by the Christian West weakened them sufficiently for the Muslim Turks to seize their lands.

I may have misunderstood your point about Persia - but you do realise that the Byzantines had defeated the Persians before the Muslims rose up? In fact it was that all out conflict of the superpowers of their day that weakened their hold on their eastern provinces sufficiently for the Arabs to defeat their armies and take them one by one.

 

[xane]

The quickest route from Arabia to Europe would have been through Constantinople, yet the Byzantines repelled attack after attack and only the ultimate betrayal by the Christian West weakened them sufficiently for the Muslim Turks to seize their lands.

The Turks only started around c.11th, and the Ottomans were c.14th, Byzantine only succeeded regaining against the Arabs initially.

The Arab Muslims first conquered Europe via Africa, across to Iberia (Spain) and into Southern France, all within the first 200 years. The resurgence of the Western Empire turned back the Arab armies and caused a power struggle, eventually the Turks gained control of the caliphate, it was during those intermediate years that the East regained anything.

I hardly call losing over 1/3 of your territory a credible defence, the Empire originally stretched all around the Mediterranean, most of the African southern half fell easily to the Arabs. The pause came because of events in the West, and any significant territory was largely regained by Western Crusaders.

As for betrayal, the reason why the Western Christians were initially unable to help was due to being decimated by the barbarian hordes, attacks that the Eastern Empire refused to assist against.

 

[Turamber]

As for betrayal, the reason why the Western Christians were initially unable to help was due to being decimated by the barbarian hordes, attacks that the Eastern Empire refused to assist against.

Which barbarian hordes are you referring to? The Slavic invasions targetted Eastern territory primarily and were only brought under control in around the 8th and 9th centuries. If you are referring to Germanic invasions in Western Europe then I'm afraid that had long been removed from the sphere of influence of Byzantium, both militarily and politically.

Some of your facts are correct but your reading of them is a little 'off'. The Eastern Empire suffered the brunt of Muslim aggression from the rise of Islam to 1453 and the fall of Constantinople. If it hadn't been for the stubborn defence of its borders then Europe might well have become part of the Caliphate.

The Empire proved intractable after its initial losses and in the 10th century, long before the Crusades (which were launched at the request of Alexius Comnenus, a Byzantine Emperor - admittedly he had wanted soldiers, but instead had feudal lords and men sent to his 'aid') ever started.

The armies of Nicephorus Phocas, dubbed the White Death as he killed as many Arabs as leprosy, were so close to Jerusalem that their banners could be seen from the city walls.

Unfortunately for the Eastern Empire their success was always down to a successful combination of bureaucratic skill and military organisation working in balance. When either the bureacrats or the great military families got into the ascendancy things went badly for them.

And a period of uncertainty and change for the Empire ensued when its greatest Emperor, Basil II, died and carried on up until 1071 (and afterwards) when the Seljuks invaded Asia Minor at Manzikert. Many historians think that the Empire could have even recovered from that, but the Fourth Crusade's attack fatally wounded it and although its death struggles lasted over two hundred years its fate was sealed.

 

[mr.Blacky]

err who cares it means a monday off

 

[xane]

Which barbarian hordes are you referring to?

Germanic, which the Eastern Empire left to decimate the Western Empire.

I agree Byzantine defended Constantinople admirably, but it never mounted a serious reconquest like the Western Crusaders did, and it's survival between c.10th and c.14th was down to the Islamic Empire becoming momentarily powerless as the political situation changed, this was accelerated by military losses caused by reconquests from the "Western Christian Empire" and later from the Mongol invasion.

Once the Ottomans consolidated the caliphate, they steamrollered over Constantinople and charged all the way to Vienna, where they were turned from Europe by Western Christians again.

I wouldn't refer to losing a vast amount of your Empire as "a stubborn defence of borders", it was a last ditch stand of an Empire that was already lost.

 

[Turamber]

I wouldn't refer to losing a vast amount of your Empire as "a stubborn defence of borders", it was a last ditch stand of an Empire that was already lost.

By your own admission 2/3rds of the Byzantine or Eastern Roman Empire remained in their hands, so I'd say it was far from lost. And as previously stated the land corridor to Europe over Asia Minor was much closer than the route across North Africa, over the Straits of Gibraltar and up through Spain.

Whichever way you slice it Western Europe doesn't come out of history smelling of roses. Even the majority of the Crusaders, despite swearing fealty to the Byzantine Emperor, kept the lands they were conquered until they were either re-conquered by Muslims or later Byzantine Emperors.