He has Risen. He has Risen indeed. I am prayerful that all of the believers in Christ Jesus have made time to reflect on the awesome celebration of the Resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

To know that the Word of God, moved down from the glory of Heaven and became flesh on earth to live, teach, and served humanity with a love that cannot be matched. Then, he being Jesus, honored the will of God (his Father) and became the greatest and final sacrificial Passover Lamb of atonement. In the process, He was lied on, beaten and rejected by humanity. He was put on trial, wrongly convicted, and crucified on a criminals cross where His blood flowed and He was separated from God as He became Sin (the sins of all time). In doing so, the power of sin was removed and it not retain its strangle hold of death over humanity. Jesus then died on that cross, was buried in a borrowed tomb. His death was the final sacrifice for all humanity - for those willing to believe and accept him as Savior. But, on the third day after He died, Jesus rose from the dead - resurrected with all power in His hands signifying that the sting of death that came from sin was defeated and power of the Devil was removed from the life of humanity. Jesus was resurrected, so that humanity can have a place in eternity, so that the curse of sin that was brought about by Adam could be removed forever. So that we can all choose to be free.

Now, that Jesus has risen, we have a right to live free from the curse of sin. We have a right and the power to defeat the Devil. We have a right to accept Jesus and Lord and Savior, to believe in His love for us and to become citizens of the Kingdom of God. We have a right to eternity in Heaven with God. And because of Jesus we have a right to claim our inheritance to receive a new life, a reclaimed life, an everlasting life of abundance, hope, peace, and love.

He has Risen. HE has RISEN Indeed! CHRIST has RISNE!






.
.
.
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4

I can't believe a grown man with 2015 internet technology believes that tale so whole heartedly


Its just like that scientology doc

>I can't believe a grown man with 2015 internet technology
>believes that tale so whole heartedly
>

Having access to more nonsense opinions and more non peer reviewed resources should reduce my faith.

Gotcha! Nah-Bruh.


.
.
.
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4

but seems like you've been cool with that for a long time


e-meters & the blood of vampires...all in the sci-fi section bruh

.
.
.
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4

For all of the falsehoods & and opinions on the net, there are is also factual information. You know, like those links you like to post on your poverty pimp Creflo and shit


you can use the net to post that credible bullshit, but ignore the real shit


thats the point you missed rev

And I hope that you have a great day.


.
.
.
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4

and on easter at that, damn shame

I'm not arguing with you. I asked you a question. You answered. I bid you a good day.

To Easy. Plus you never asked me a direct question.


.
.
.
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4

and I didn't ask you nothin, what are you talkin about


ah nevermind, continue to celebrate the second most pagan holiday - or internet lie lol

God bless you.


.
.
.
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4

but don't worry, nobody's saying you can't get all dolled up for a white guy coming back from the dead to save black people, you're free to be apart of that racket


its just that anyone who literally believes the nonsense in the OP deserves to be ridiculed, especially if they are so called leaders. And in you are critically stupid if you believe it in 2015, thats all


why does it bother you that it might bother me tho

I mean, its 2015 and your still questioning faith...
why?

im assuming you know a little about Christianity. Christ died being mocked; yet still chose to die. You'll "never" change the belief of the faithful.

at some point one should learn not to argue for those deemed fools.

written as a spectator....

I just like pointing out shit that hurts black people and laughing about those who soft step around the real issue..you know, black kids worshipping a white zombie act, shit like that


only morons from your flock play the conversion game, not me. sorry.


pretty sharp for girl with Trinity as her handle tho

The dialogue between Christians and you could have gone so much better if you truly wanted to know about our faith. But you are not coming across as a person that's being honest. You are basing you arguments of information that is mostly supported by stereotypes and ignorance of the faith.

But if Christianity bothers you so much you could try to learn more, so that you can make sure that people are learning the right information and history.

Again, I hope that you have an amazing day.



.
.
.
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4

And I do that around the ages you charlatans try to fill their heads with your slave religion. That way, they don't grow up to be people like you, you know, a house nigga teaching masters religion.


And wrong again, I grew up heavy in the church homie, thats why I know so much about its fraudulent protocol lol, I was even a deacon. Thats why you're so transparent



But thanks for the no snark, although I prefer your regular condescending ways you like to 'minister' to people here. Save your soft handshake for the pope homie, I'm not friendly to cowards *shrug*

You do know that Archaeology is science too.While archaeology is not or not entirely the Christian's basis for faith, archaeology does provide objective and tangible evidence in support of many of the Bible's historical facts.



>And I do that around the ages you charlatans try to fill
>their heads with your slave religion. That way, they don't
>grow up to be people like you, you know, a house nigga
>teaching masters religion.
>
>
>And wrong again, I grew up heavy in the church homie, thats
>why I know so much about its fraudulent protocol lol, I was
>even a deacon. Thats why you're so transparent
>
>
>
>But thanks for the no snark, although I prefer your regular
>condescending ways you like to 'minister' to people here.
>Save your soft handshake for the pope homie, I'm not friendly
>to cowards *shrug*


And if you truly teach science, then your mind should be more open to learning about things that you don't know anything about. That's what teachers do and science is all about learning about the mysteries of things that people don't know about.



.
.
.
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4

if not, then you are the one that apparently knows nothing lol



my students would even call you batshit for even bringing archeology up in that context


whats next, the bible can explain Jonah in whale using oceanography? lol


I wish you were a real man in real life, not a cartoon coon. The net is fun, but seeing stupid in realtime would fuckin rock

>if not, then you are the one that apparently knows nothing
>lol
>
>
>
>my students would even call you batshit for even bringing
>archeology up in that context
>
>
>whats next, the bible can explain Jonah in whale using
>oceanography? lol
>
>
>I wish you were a real man in real life, not a cartoon coon.
>The net is fun, but seeing stupid in realtime would fuckin
>rock



Well, when it comes to the resurrection Jesus Christ, there is one overwhelming matter that overshadows every other consideration. And that is the implication of what resurrection would means to the faith.

Jesus quoted the Old Testament as truth of God. He also promised that his Spirit would guide his apostles into all truth, and faith. The resurrection is one of the most important prophecies by which the Old Testament identifies the divine Messiah; a prophecy that Jesus repeatedly applied to himself. Thus, Jesus' resurrection would validate the Old Testament, the New Testament.

For many people believing in a Risen Christ is hard to believe, because they have no spiritual relationship with the God or His Son Jesus.

But, for those who were eyewitnesses to the resurrection, those who were part of the first and second generation Christian movement, they were able to believe as they proclaimed Jesus as the risen Christ because of their relationship. Upon their proclamation, many were killed by the Roman Emperor Nero. And this claim is a historical fact. That was the degree of their certainty in the resurrection of Jesus Christ: believing he rose from the dead when the penalty for believing was horrible death.

"We know that all but one of Christ's apostles were killed for their faith. Some of these men had also authored books in the New Testament. The major New Testament author, Paul, similarly chose to accept his own beheading rather than agree to stop preaching of Christ's bodily resurrection.

The preference of these men to be tortured or killed is evidence of the literal truth of the resurrection account. For if their preaching was intended to only symbolically continue Christ's teachings, there is no reason for anyone to have chosen martyrdom. Paul and the apostles could have simply conceded the point that Christ's physical body was dead. That would have satisfied both Jewish and Roman authorities, and in no way hindered the allegorical interpretation of the resurrection if that is indeed what they had been trying to promote.

If they had intended that Christ was alive only to the extent to which his teachings were being lived out, then their own willful deaths would actually have been antithetical to that so-called continuation. The apostles' and Gospel authors' belief in the literal resurrection of Jesus is the most rational explanation for them to have been unanimous in accepting the harsh consequences that they received.

Most of them were repeatedly warned and given ample opportunity to cease from preaching Christ's return. It appears that no apostle was executed without having received many such chances to clarify his teachings and to recant from any literal misinterpretations of what each may have been saying. Yet not one recanted nor restated his beliefs to save himself from exile, arrest, beatings, torture, or death.

As has often been stated, "Who would knowingly die for a lie?" It might be conjectured that some of Jim Jones followers knowingly died for the lie of Jone's messiahship. But their deaths came about quickly by poison. Almost all of them died at the same place, at the same time, and by their own hand. This is nothing like the individual and isolated martyrdoms of each of the apostles at the torturous hands of authorities who were trying to force them to recant." ~ http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Divin/D-0504.htm




.
.
.
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4

you base all of this off hearsay of eyewitness accounts, and its a fact because people died due to the witnesses? I bet that'd hold up in court, rev


but i guess it has to be true because no one ever lied about somebody important dying, leading to wars over rumors. No where in the history books, right?


so glad my kids won't be apart of this idiotic delusion


our kids are supposed to be raised to be smarter than us, not to spit some transparent rhetoric reinforced by slave mentality. Christianity history has been proven bullshit time & and again, no matter how much y'all change the color of the vials


you just choose your own ego over the betterment of children because you're too scared to look outside your own bullshit homo/daddy issues. Thats what you are taught, and you are a good nigga, I'll give you that


but thanks for the coons perspective, I'm printing this out for tomorrow

I know the feeling and the attitude well. You hate God because you can't control Him. You have Jesus because you know that you will have to submit and bow to Him. And in response you try to tear down Christians because you need to feel superior over someone that is associated with God, because you are His creation - He's not yours.



.
.
.
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4

> You have Jesus because you know
>that you will have to submit and bow to Him.

wanna explain this one homie? is this how your gay fantasies surface bro lol?


I knew you were #delivert but I thought you was talking about something else


Glad you got the body of christ off your chest tho

>> You have Jesus because you know
>>that you will have to submit and bow to Him.
>
>wanna explain this one homie? is this how your gay fantasies
>surface bro lol?
>
>
>I knew you were #delivert but I thought you was talking about
>something else
>
>
>Glad you got the body of christ off your chest tho



Stay Classy Dude.



.
.
.
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4

my kids enjoy hearing how people like you believe in talking snakes and zombie jesus, they love it. They ask how old the people are that believe that lol


I wonder how the children you interact with would respond about atheism and how science can disprove how jesus didn't ride on the back of a t-rex.


Oh thats right, you don't teach them about reality, only about how a dead white dude got gold streets in heaven for waiting for them.


You know what fuck that. Case I'mma convert and give myself to God. Help me please, I'm tired of running

You hate Jesus and it's evident. But that's ok.

>my kids enjoy hearing how people like you believe in talking
>snakes and zombie jesus, they love it. They ask how old the
>people are that believe that lol
>
>

If you actually teach public school then I know that you don't talk about Jesus in class, which means that you are lying.


>I wonder how the children you interact with would respond
>about atheism and how science can disprove how jesus didn't
>ride on the back of a t-rex.
>
>

If you really wanted a true and honest dialog then you would conduct yourself accordingly.



>Oh thats right, you don't teach them about reality, only about
>how a dead white dude got gold streets in heaven for waiting
>for them.
>
>

See how wrong you are, Jesus is not dead.


>You know what fuck that. Case I'mma convert and give myself to
>God. Help me please, I'm tired of running

It all starts in your heart. You have to be honest with yourself. And right now you are lying to God and yourself.

.
.
.
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4

I thought you actually cared about your faith rather than your witless ego. But then again, its your cowardly nature that guide your steps, not an imaginary friend


it was a nice run tho rev lol

You can always confess Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior tomorrow morning before you go to work.


.
.
.
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4

all that hoopin & hollarin & holy ghosting & stomping & falling out & speaking in tongues...

stop it

all of it






***
I'm tryna be better off, not better than...

.
.
.
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4

That's the part most connected to our heritage.

I greet people with "happy easter" but it doesn't mean anything anymore.

I'm not Christian or nothing but I like Easter. Beautiful day, women out in sun dresses, BBQ, people got they best outfits on, not as much bullshit pretense as XMAS.

I'm kickin back listening to soul music right now, bout to smoke a joint and go eat a burrito. Have a happy easter yall

To all other people, enjoy the candy.

.
.
.
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4

peace & blessings,

x.

www.twitter.com/poetx

=========================================
I'm an advocate for working smarter, not harder. If you just
focus on working hard you end up making someone else rich and
not having much to show for it. (c) mad

do you not believe in Easter, but feel the need to celebrate Christ's resurrection? do you believe calling it something different makes it not Easter? very curious about this since i often hear a lot of (mostly black) church going folks say it as Ressurection Sunday more recently.

>do you not believe in Easter, but feel the need to celebrate
>Christ's resurrection? do you believe calling it something
>different makes it not Easter? very curious about this since
>i often hear a lot of (mostly black) church going folks say it
>as Resurrection Sunday more recently.

It's just a more direct way of communicating the fact of the High Holy Celebration Day. In my opinion saying Resurrection Sunday focuses the people of today on Jesus, instead of all of the commercialism that comes with Easter.

.
.
.
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4

nor is a celebration of Christ's ressurection. his ressurection is obviously important (as it was prophecied to happen) but Jesus never said to celebrate his ressurection. Easter has nothing to do with Jesus at all, so how is just saying Ressurection Sunday making something that has nothing to do with Jesus from the start more about Jesus?

>nor is a celebration of Christ's ressurection. his
>ressurection is obviously important (as it was prophecied to
>happen) but Jesus never said to celebrate his ressurection.
>Easter has nothing to do with Jesus at all, so how is just
>saying Ressurection Sunday making something that has nothing
>to do with Jesus from the start more about Jesus?



Easter Sunday does have everything to do with Christ's Resurrection. During the first Council of Nicaea, Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325, he had
the council settle the issues that dealt with Christological issue and one of those issue was the observance of Jesus Christ's Resurrection as the celebration of Easter. Also, Passover is at the same time and Jesus is the final Passover Lamb.

Also the word is spelled Resurrection, it's a common mistake.


***********************************************

Easter

Help support New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download or CD-ROM. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

The English term, according to the Ven. Bede (De temporum ratione, I, v), relates to Estre, a Teutonic goddess of the rising light of day and spring, which deity, however, is otherwise unknown, even in the Edda (Simrock, Mythol., 362); Anglo-Saxon, eâster, eâstron; Old High German, ôstra, ôstrara, ôstrarûn; German, Ostern. April was called easter-monadh. The plural eâstron is used, because the feast lasts seven days. Like the French plural Pâques, it is a translation from the Latin Festa Paschalia, the entire octave of Easter. The Greek term for Easter, pascha, has nothing in common with the verb paschein, "to suffer," although by the later symbolic writers it was connected with it; it is the Aramaic form of the Hebrew pesach (transitus, passover). The Greeks called Easter the pascha anastasimon; Good Friday the pascha staurosimon. The respective terms used by the Latins are Pascha resurrectionis and Pascha crucifixionis. In the Roman and Monastic Breviaries the feast bears the title Dominica Resurrectionis; in the Mozarabic Breviary, In Lætatione Diei Pasch Resurrectionis; in the Ambrosian Breviary, In Die Sancto Paschæ. The Romance languages have adopted the Hebrew-Greek term: Latin, Pascha; Italian, Pasqua; Spanish, Pascua; French, Pâques. Also some Celtic and Teutonic nations use it: Scottish, Pask; Dutch, Paschen; The correct word in Dutch is actually Pasen Danish, Paaske; Swedish, Pask; even in the German provinces of the Lower Rhine the people call the feast Paisken not Ostern. The word is, principally in Spain and Italy, identified with the word "solemnity" and extended to other feasts, e.g. Sp., Pascua florida, Palm Sunday; Pascua de Pentecostes, Pentecost; Pascua de la Natividad, Christmas; Pascua de Epifania, Epiphany. In some parts of France also First Communion is called Pâques, whatever time of the year administered.

The feast

Easter is the principal feast of the ecclesiastical year. Leo I (Sermo xlvii in Exodum) calls it the greatest feast (festum festorum), and says that Christmas is celebrated only in preparation for Easter. It is the centre of the greater part of the ecclesiastical year. The order of Sundays from Septuagesima to the last Sunday after Pentecost, the feast of the Ascension, Pentecost, Corpus Christi, and all other movable feasts, from that of the Prayer of Jesus in the Garden (Tuesday after Septuagesima) to the feast of the Sacred Heart (Friday after the octave of Corpus Christi), depend upon the Easter date. Commemorating the slaying of the true Lamb of God and the Resurrection of Christ, the corner-stone upon which faith is built, it is also the oldest feast of the Christian Church, as old as Christianity, the connecting link between the Old and New Testaments. That the Apostolic Fathers do not mention it and that we first hear of it principally through the controversy of the Quartodecimans are purely accidental. The connection between the Jewish Passover and the Christian feast of Easter is real and ideal. Real, since Christ died on the first Jewish Easter Day; ideal, like the relation between type and reality, because Christ's death and Resurrection had its figures and types in the Old Law, particularly in the paschal lamb, which was eaten towards evening of the 14th of Nisan. In fact, the Jewish feast was taken over into the Christian Easter celebration; the liturgy (Exsultet) sings of the passing of Israel through the Red Sea, the paschal lamb, the column of fire, etc. Apart, however, from the Jewish feast, the Christians would have celebrated the anniversary of the death and the Resurrection of Christ. But for such a feast it was necessary to know the exact calendar date of Christ's death. To know this day was very simple for the Jews; it was the day after the 14th of the first month, the 15th of Nisan of their calendar. But in other countries of the vast Roman Empire there were other systems of chronology. The Romans from 45 B.C. had used the reformed Julian calendar; there were also the Egyptian and the Syro-Macedonian calendar. The foundation of the Jewish calendar was the lunar year of 354 days, whilst the other systems depended on the solar year. In consequence the first days of the Jewish months and years did not coincide with any fixed days of the Roman solar year. Every fourth year of the Jewish system had an intercalary month. Since this month was inserted, not according to some scientific method or some definite rule, but arbitrarily, by command of the Sanhedrin, a distant Jewish date can never with certainty be transposed into the corresponding Julian or Gregorian date (Ideler, Chronologie, I, 570 sq.). The connection between the Jewish and the Christian Pasch explains the movable character of this feast. Easter has no fixed date, like Christmas, because the 15th of Nisan of the Semitic calendar was shifting from date to date on the Julian calendar. Since Christ, the true Paschal Lamb, had been slain on the very day when the Jews, in celebration of their Passover, immolated the figurative lamb, the Jewish Christians in the Orient followed the Jewish method, and commemorated the death of Christ on the 15th of Nisan and His Resurrection on the 17th of Nisan, no matter on what day of the week they fell. For this observance they claimed the authority of St. John and St. Philip.

In the rest of the empire another consideration predominated. Every Sunday of the year was a commemoration of the Resurrection of Christ, which had occurred on a Sunday. Because the Sunday after 14 Nisan was the historical day of the Resurrection, at Rome this Sunday became the Christian feast of Easter. Easter was celebrated in Rome and Alexandria on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the spring equinox, and the Roman Church claimed for this observance the authority of Sts. Peter and Paul. The spring equinox in Rome fell on 25 March; in Alexandria on 21 March. At Antioch Easter was kept on the Sunday after the Jewish Passover. (See EASTER CONTROVERSY.) In Gaul a number of bishops, wishing to escape the difficulties of the paschal computation, seem to have assigned Easter to a fixed date of the Roman calendar, celebrating the death of Christ on 25 March, His Resurrection on 27 March (Marinus Dumiensis in P.L., LXXII, 47-51), since already in the third century 25 March was considered the day of the Crucifixion (Computus Pseudocyprianus, ed. Lersch, Chronologie, II, 61). This practice was of short duration. Many calendars in the Middle Ages contain these same dates (25 March, 27 March) for purely historical, not liturgical, reasons (Grotenfend, Zeitrechnung, II, 46, 60, 72, 106, 110, etc.). The Montanists in Asia Minor kept Easter on the Sunday after 6 April (Schmid, Osterfestberechnung in der abendlandischen Kirche). The First Council of Nicaea (325) decreed that the Roman practice should be observed throughout the Church. But even at Rome the Easter term was changed repeatedly. Those who continued to keep Easter with the Jews were called Quartodecimans (14 Nisan) and were excluded from the Church. The computus paschalis, the method of determining the date of Easter and the dependent feasts, was of old considered so important that Durandus (Rit. div. off., 8, c.i.) declares a priest unworthy of the name who does not know the computus paschalis. The movable character of Easter (22 March to 25 April) gives rise to inconveniences, especially in modern times. For decades scientists and other people have worked in vain for a simplification of the computus, assigning Easter to the first Sunday in April or to the Sunday nearest the 7th of April. Some even wish to put every Sunday to a certain date of the month, e.g. beginning with New Year's always on a Sunday, etc.


******************

Easter Controversy

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05228a.htm

Ecclesiastical history preserves the memory of three distinct phases of the dispute regarding the proper time of observing Easter. It will add to clearness if we in the first place state what is certain regarding the date and the nature of these three categories.

First phase

The first was mainly concerned with the lawfulness of celebrating Easter on a weekday. We read in Eusebius (Church History V.23): "A question of no small importance arose at that time . The dioceses of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should always be observed as the feast of the life-giving pasch , contending that the fast ought to end on that day, whatever day of the week it might happen to be. However it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this point, as they observed the practice, which from Apostolic tradition has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the Resurrection of our Saviour. Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all with one consent through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree that the mystery of the Resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other day but the Sunday and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on that day only." These words of the Father of Church History, followed by some extracts which he makes from the controversial letters of the time, tell us almost all that we know concerning the paschal controversy in its first stage. A letter of St. Irenæus is among the extracts just referred to, and this shows that the diversity of practice regarding Easter had existed at least from the time of Pope Sixtus (c. 120). Further, Irenaeus states that St. Polycarp, who like the other Asiatics, kept Easter on the fourteenth day of the moon, whatever day of the week that might be, following therein the tradition which he claimed to have derived from St. John the Apostle, came to Rome c. 150 about this very question, but could not be persuaded by Pope Anicetus to relinquish his Quartodeciman observance. Nevertheless he was not debarred from communion with the Roman Church, and St. Irenæus, while condemning the Quartodeciman practice, nevertheless reproaches Pope Victor (c. 189-99) with having excommunicated the Asiatics too precipitately and with not having followed the moderation of his predecessors. The question thus debated was therefore primarily whether Easter was to be kept on a Sunday, or whether Christians should observe the Holy Day of the Jews, the fourteenth of Nisan, which might occur on any day of the week. Those who kept Easter with the Jews were called Quartodecimans or terountes (observants); but even in the time of Pope Victor this usage hardly extended beyond the churches of Asia Minor. After the pope's strong measures the Quartodecimans seem to have gradually dwindled away. Origen in the "Philosophumena" (VIII, xviii) seems to regard them as a mere handful of wrong-headed nonconformists.

Second phase

The second stage in the Easter controversy centres round the Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325). Granted that the great Easter festival was always to be held on a Sunday, and was not to coincide with a particular phase of the moon, which might occur on any day of the week, a new dispute arose as to the determination of the Sunday itself. The text of the decree of the Council of Nicaea which settled, or at least indicated a final settlement of, the difficulty has not been preserved to us, but we have an important document inserted in Eusebius's "Life of Constantine" (III, xviii sq.). The emperor himself, writing to the Churches after the Council of Nicaea, exhorts them to adopt its conclusions and says among other things: "At this meeting the question concerning the most holy day of Easter was discussed, and it was resolved by the united judgment of all present that this feast ought to be kept by all and in every place on one and the same day. . . And first of all it appeared an unworthy thing that in the celebration of the Jews, who have impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin. . . for we have received from our Saviour a different way. . . And I myself have undertaken that this decision should meet with the approval of your Sagacities in the hope that your Wisdoms will gladly admit that practice which is observed at once in the city of Rome and in Africa, throughout Italy and in Egypt. . . with entire unity of judgment." From this and other indications which cannot be specified here (see, e.g. Eusebius, "De Paschate" in Schmid, "Osterfestfrage", pp. 58-59) we learn that the dispute now lay between the Christians of Syria and Mesopotamia and the rest of the world. The important Church of Antioch was still dependent upon the Jewish calendar for its Easter. The Syrian Christians always held their Easter festival on the Sunday after the Jews kept their Pasch. On the other hand at Alexandria, and seemingly throughout the rest of the Roman Empire, the Christians calculated the time of Easter for themselves, paying no attention to the Jews. In this way the date of Easter as kept at Alexandria and Antioch did not always agree; for the Jews, upon whom Antioch depended, adopted very arbitrary methods of intercalating embolismic months (see CALENDAR, Bol. II, p. 158) before they celebrated Nisan, the first spring month, on the fourteenth day of which the paschal lamb was killed. In particular we learn that they had become neglectful (or at least the Christians of Rome and Alexandria declared they were neglectful) of the law that the fourteenth of Nisan must never precede the equinox (see Schwartz, Christliche und judische Ostertafeln, pp. 138 sqq.). Thus Constantine in the letter quoted above protests with horror that the Jews sometimes kept two Paschs in one year, meaning that two Paschs sometimes fell between one equinox and the next.
The Alexandrians, on the other hand, accepted it as a first principle that the Sunday to be kept as Easter Day must necessarily occur after the vernal equinox, then identified with 21 March of the Julian year. This was the main difficulty which was decided by the Council of Nicaea. Even among the Christians who calculated Easter for themselves there had been considerable variations (partly due to a divergent reckoning of the date of the equinox), and as recently as 314, in the Council of Arles, it had been laid down that in future Easter should be kept uno die et uno tempore per omnem orbem, and that to secure this uniformity the pope should send out letters to all the Churches. The Council of Nicaea seems to have extended further the principle here laid down. As already stated, we have not its exact words, but we may safely infer from scattered notices that the council ruled:

that Easter must be celebrated by all throughout the world on the same Sunday;
that this Sunday must follow the fourteenth day of the paschal moon;
that that moon was to be accounted the paschal moon whose fourteenth day followed the spring equinox;
that some provision should be made, probably by the Church of Alexandria as best skilled in astronomical calculations, for determining the proper date of Easter and communicating it to the rest of the world (see St. Leo to the Emperor Marcian in Migne, P.L., LIV, 1055).
This ruling of the Council of Nicaea did not remove all difficulties nor at once win universal acceptance among the Syrians. But to judge from the strongly worded canon i of the Council of Antioch (A.D. 341; see Hefele-Leclereq, "Conciles", I, 714), as also from the language of the Apostolic Constitutions and Canons (see Schmid, Osterfestfrage, p. 63), the Syrian bishops loyally co-operated in carrying into effect the decision of the Council of Nicaea. In Rome and Alexandria the lunar cycles by which the occurrence of Easter was determined was not uniform. Rome, after the hundred-and-twelve year cycle of Hippolytus, adopted an eighty-four year cycle, but neither gave satisfactory results. Alexandria adhered to the more accurate nineteen-year cycle of Meton. But it seems to be clearly established by the most recent researches (see Schwartz, op. cit., pp. 28-29) that the lunar cycles were never understood to be more than aids towards ascertaining the correct date of Easter, also that where the calculations of Rome and Alexandria led to divergent results, compromises were made upon both sides and that the final decision always lay with accepted ecclesiastical authority.
Third phase

It was to the divergent cycles which Rome had successively adopted and rejected in its attempt to determine Easter more accurately that the third stage in the paschal controversy was mainly due. The Roman missionaries coming to England in the time of St. Gregory the Great found the British Christians, the representatives of that Christianity which had been introduced into Britain during the period of the Roman occupation, still adhering to an ancient system of Easter-computation which Rome itself had laid aside. The British and Irish Christians were not Quartodecimans, as some unwarrantably accused them of being, for they kept the Easter festival upon a Sunday. They are supposed (e.g. by Krusch) to have observed an eight-four year cycle and not the five-hundred and thirty two year cycle of Victorius which was adopted in Gaul, but the most recent investigator of the question (Schwartz, p. 103) declares it to be impossible to determine what system they followed and himself inclines to the opinion that they derived their rule for the determining of Easter direct from Asia Minor. (See, however, the very opposite conclusions of Joseph Schmid, ("Die Osterfestberechnung auf den britischen Inseln", 1904.) The story of this controversy, which together with the difference in the shape of tonsure, seems to have prevented all fraternization between the British Christians and the Roman missionaries, is told at length in the pages of Bede. The British appealed to the tradition of St. John, the Romans to that of St. Peter, both sides with little reason, and neither without the suspicion of forgery. It was not until the Synod of Whitby in 664 that the Christians of Northern Britain, who had derived their instruction in the Faith from the Scottish (i.e. Irish) missionaries, at last at the instance of Bishop Wilfrid and through the example of King Oswy accepted the Roman system and came into friendly relations with the bishops of the South. Even then in Ireland and in parts of the North some years passed before the adoption of the Roman Easter became general (Moran, Essays on the Origin, Doctrines and Discipline of the Early Irish Church, Dublin, 1864).

Points of obscurity

These are the facts regarding the Easter controversy which are now generally admitted. Many other subsidiary details have an important bearing on the case but are more matters of conjecture. There is, for example, the perplexing doubt whether the Crucifixion of Christ took place on the fourteenth or fifteenth of Nisan. The Synoptists seem to favour the latter, St. John the former date. Clearly we should expect to find that according to the answer given to this question, the position of the earliest possible Easter Sunday in the lunar month would also change. Again, there is the problem, much debated by modern scholars, whether the Pasch which the early Christians desired to commemorate was primarily the Passion or the Resurrection of Christ. Upon this point also our date do not admit of a very positive answer. It has been very strongly urged that the writers of the first two centuries who speak of the Pasch have always in view the pascha staurosimon, the Crucifixion Day, when Jesus Christ Himself was offered as the Victim, the antitype of the Jewish paschal lamb. Supporters of this opinion often contend that the Resurrection was held to be sufficiently commemorated by the weekly Sunday, on the vigil of which the night-watch was kept, the Liturgy being celebrated in the morning. In any case it must be admitted that while in the New Testament we have definite mention of the observance of the Sunday, or "Lord's Day", there is no conclusive evidence in the first century or more of the keeping of the Pasch as a festival. Some are inclined to think that the Christian Easter first appears as setting a term to the great paschal fast which, as we learn from Irenaeus, was very variously kept in the sub-Apostolic Age. Another class of obscure and rather intricate questions, about which it is difficult to speak positively, regards the limits of the paschal period as laid down by the computation of rome before the tables of Dionysius Exiguus and the Metonic cycle were finally adopted there in 525. According to one system Easter Day might fall between the fourteenth and twentieth day inclusive of the paschal moon; and although this implies that when Easter fell on the fourteenth it coincided with the Jewish Pasch, the Roman Church, observing its eighty-four-year cycle, at one time permitted this (so at least Krusch contends; see "Der 84-jahrige Ostercyclus und seine Quellen", pp. 20 and 65). Certain it is that the data of the supputatio Romana did not always agree with those of Alexandria, and in particular it seems that Rome, rejecting 22 March as the earliest possible date of Easter, only allowed the 23rd, while, on the other hand, the latest possible date according to the Roman system was 21 April. This sometimes brought about an impasse which was relieved only by accepting the Alexandrian solution. Other computations allowed Easter to fall between the fifteenth and twenty-first day of the paschal moon and others between the sixteenth and the twenty- second.

What is perhaps most important to remember, both in the solution adopted in 525 and in that officially put forward at the time of the reform of the Calendar by Gregory XIII, is this, that the Church throughout held that the determination of Easter was primarily a matter of ecclesiastical discipline and not of astronomical science. As Professor De Morgan long ago clearly recognized, the moon according to which Easter is calculated is not the moon in the heavens nor even the mean moon, i.e. a moon traveling with the average motion of the real moon, but simply the moon of the calendar. This calendar moon is admittedly a fiction, though it departs very little from the actual astronomical facts; but in following the simple rule given for the dependence of Easter upon the moon of the calendar, uniformity is secured for all countries of the world. According to this rule, Easter Sunday is the first Sunday which occurs after the first full moon (or more accurately after the first fourteenth day of the moon) following the 21st of March. As a result, the earliest possible date of Easter is 22 March, the latest 25 April.

Sources

The bibliography of this subject is vast, and most ecclesiastical encyclopedias devote more or less space to it. For practical purposes the text and notes of HEFELE-LECLERCQ, Conciles, I, 133-151 and 450-488, supply all that is necessary; though LECLERCQ refers to the article Comput paschal in the Dictionnaire d'Archéologie for fuller treatment.

Among the more important contributions to the subject the following may be named: KRUSCH, Studien zur christlichmittelalterlichen Chronologie (Leipzig, 1880); IDEM in Neues Archiv (1884), 101-169; RUHL, Chronologie des Mittelalters und der Neuzeit (Berlin, 1897), 110-165; SCHMID, Die Osterfestfrage auf dem ersten allgemeinen Conzil von Nicaa (Vienna, 1905); IDEM, Die Osterfestberechnung auf den britischen Inseln (Ratisbon, 1904); HILGENFELD, Der Paschastreit der alten Kirche (1860); SCHWARTZ, Christliche und judische Ostertafeln (Berlin, 1905) in the Abhandlungen of the Gottingen academy: this is a work of the very highest importance; SCHURER, Die Passastreitigkeit en des 2. Jahrhunderts in Zeitschrift f. histor. Theol. (1870); DUCHESNE, Hist. Anc. de l'Église (Paris, 1906), I, 285-291; KELLNER, Heortologie (1906); DUCHESNE in Revue des Quest. Hist. (1880); ANSCOMBE and TURNER in Eng. Historical Review (1895), 515, 699; WICKLN in Journal of Philology (1901), 137-151. See also the bibliography given under CHRONOLOGY, GENERAL; and DOMINICAL LETTER.

About this page

APA citation. Thurston, H. (1909). Easter Controversy. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved April 6, 2015 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05228a.htm

MLA citation. Thurston, Herbert. "Easter Controversy." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 5. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909. 6 Apr. 2015 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05228a.htm>.

Transcription. This article was transcribed for New Advent by Michael T. Barrett.

Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.

Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is webmaster at newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.


.
.
.
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4

you answered the first question so i brought up a follow-up. i understand the beginings of Easter. the point i'm making though is that Jesus didn't say to celebrate his resurrection (how's that?) nor did his Apostles have that tradition. it wasn't until much later that Easter (like many other things) was instituted. so trying to "bring it back to Jesus" seems a little paradoxical to me.

And because Jesus didn't say, "Remember my resurrection" you are assuming that the celebrating the resurrection is not right, or bad, or what?

>you answered the first question so i brought up a follow-up.
>i understand the beginings of Easter. the point i'm making
>though is that Jesus didn't say to celebrate his resurrection
>(how's that?) nor did his Apostles have that tradition. it
>wasn't until much later that Easter (like many other things)
>was instituted. so trying to "bring it back to Jesus" seems a
>little paradoxical to me.

Let me ask you this question, so I can have a better understanding of your view, what to you know and how much do you really know about Christianity? This is important.


.
.
.
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4

>And because Jesus didn't say, "Remember my resurrection" you
>are assuming that the celebrating the resurrection is not
>right, or bad, or what?


yes, I believe that if Easter was supposed to be one of the most important days of the year for Christians that Jesus or at very least his apostles would have mentioned it in the scriptures.

No context. No research. No study. Just your own thoughts about a religion that you may not fully understand yet.

So, with that logic all things end and begin for you with based on if Jesus said to do or not to do - including the Apostles.

I'm not knocking you, I've been there and that's why I asked the question. So, do you believe that you have a real grasp of Christianity, its doctrines, history, evolution into being?

While you think about that. I'll shed some light.

Christians celebrate Easter in the same contextual manner as a significant event in our faith and religious beliefs, much like all humans do when it comes to remembering key events.

Just because Jesus didn't say to do it, I could argue that he never said not to do it either, but that wouldn't get us anywhere. Easter is a High Holy day for Christians to reflect and remember the price that was paid for humanity to be redeemed. I explained that in the OP.





.
.
.
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4

all things should end and begin with what the Bible has to say. isn't that why we have the Bible? isn't it the inspired word of God? you want context? how about the Bible itself ...

Mark 6 : 7, 8 - He said to them: “Isaiah aptly prophesied about you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far removed from me. It is in vain that they keep worshiping me, for they teach commands of men as doctrines.’ You let go of the commandment of God and cling to the tradition of men.”

Acts 20:29, 30 - I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among you and will not treat the flock with tenderness, and from among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves.

2 Corinthians 6:14, 17 - Do not become unevenly yoked with unbelievers. For what fellowship do righteousness and lawlessness have? Or what sharing does light have with darkness? ... "‘Therefore, get out from among them, and separate yourselves,’ says Jehovah, ‘and quit touching the unclean thing’”; “‘and I will take you in.’”

1 John 4:1 - Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired statement, but test the inspired statements to see whether they originate with God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.



now all of this sounds to me like we shouldn't be trying to mix Christian beliefs with pagan beliefs and try to call it Christianity. anything that does so should be rejected.

position. But it's all over the place and it's basically and completely in error.



>now all of this sounds to me like we shouldn't be trying to
>mix Christian beliefs with pagan beliefs and try to call it
>Christianity. anything that does so should be rejected.


^^ Dude, stop. You are wrong on so many levels.




.
.
.
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4

what did i say that was wrong? i showed you actual scriptures in the Bible to back up what i was saying.

christians can only go back so far in history before they're fairy tale crumbles into a series of lies they tell children.

LOL @ the resurrection & easter being the same thing. One came from the other

Read a book for yourself.


.
.
.
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4

true the name Easter is not derived from the goddess Ishtar, but Easter is certainly an amalgam of celebrations. it includes many traditions and superstitions from spring festivals as well as fertility dieties like Ishtar (the bunny, the eggs). put that all in a blender with Christ's resurrection and you get Easter.

The origins of Easter are rooted in European traditions. The name Easter comes from a pagan figure called Eastre (or Eostre) who was celebrated as the goddess of spring by the Saxons of Northern Europe. A festival called Eastre was held during the spring equinox by these people to honor her.

Here's a quick article form The Daily Beast.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/29/happy-easter-which-is-not-named-after-ishtar-okay.html

Easter is an English word. The Greeks and Romans called it Pascha, which is why Easter is Pasqua in Italian, Pascua in Spanish, and Paques in French. How exactly did the name of a Canaanite fertility goddess skip all the way to England from the Middle East without stopping in Rome or Byzantium?

Read the Article.

.
.
.
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4

The article you quoted says that Easter has pagan origins and customs. If you're a follower of Christ, why would you celebrate a holiday that's basically anti-christian and claim you're doing it in Christ's honor?

.
.
.
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4

"Most scholars believe that Easter gets its name from Eostre or Ostara, a Germanic pagan goddess." ... "Look. Here’s the thing. Our Western Easter traditions incorporate a lot of elements from a bunch of different religious backgrounds." ... "The fact is that the Ancient Romans were smart when it came to conquering. In their pagan days, they would absorb gods and goddesses from every religion they encountered into their own pantheon; when the Roman Empire became Christian, the Roman Catholic Church continued to do the same thing, in a manner of speaking." ... "Scratch the surface of just about any Christian holiday, and you’ll find pagan elements, if not a downright pagan theme, underneath."


so while you're trying to defend Easter vs Ishtar, the article you linked clearly says that the name and customs of Easter came from pagan origins.

so again i ask you, if you're supposed to be Christian and the Bible all throughout clearly says to stay away from things exactly like this, why keep doing it?

but he's too 307 to even address that


thats why he's accepts house nigga as his moniker. too chicken shit to address it lol



feel sorry for his son

"Most scholars believe that Easter gets its name from Eostre or Ostara"

That has nothing to do with the events of the remembering and celebrating of the Resurrection.

I Swear, Y'all are some SMART DUMB Kind of people.




.
.
.
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4

you made your point that the word Easter doesn't directly come from the name Ishtar. that point has been made, we got it.


do you agree or disagree that Easter is an amalgam of pagan and Christian beliefs?

pagan tradition into the resurrection celebration as a way to bring non Christians into the faith and to appease them. This is well documented in Church History.


.
.
.
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4

hope you had a good one.


peace & blessings,

x.

www.twitter.com/poetx

=========================================
I'm an advocate for working smarter, not harder. If you just
focus on working hard you end up making someone else rich and
not having much to show for it. (c) mad

.
.
.
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4

I got no dog in this fight...
just that observation....
I like Blackisms...lol...


"Seasons may come and your luck just may run out, and all that you'll have is some memories..."

.
.
.
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4

he's not dead
(dont cry/ why do you cry?)

lol i dont know the title
i had the opportunity to minister via dance
to that song years ago

anyway
it was a good day
i didnt go to my church unfortunately
but i went to my parent's church
i didnt feel the word there
BUT wildchild had fun

i ended up watching my church's service
online

.
.
.
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4