Easter: Biblical or "Baptized Paganism"

C Mc

To keep us from going down "rabbit holes" consider the questions below:

1. What is the origin of Easter?
2. When was it started?
3. Is it Biblical?
4. Is it something to observe today?
5. What do colored hard-boiled eggs, bunny rabbits, and sugary candy have to do with Easter?
6. Does Easter have a pagan origin and should Christians distant themselves from it?

These and other points can be mined and discussed. What say ye? CM

Dave_L

For starters I believe Easter is a pagan holiday and it is doubtful Jesus was crucified on "good Friday". But it is a celebration nonetheless of his death, burial, and resurrection. And for this reason I believe it is a good practice. Just as Christmas helps keep Jesus' name in the forefront.

GaoLu

Biblical and beautiful.

Jan

I believe we might be looking at an ancient example of contextualization here. Quite possibly, several of the Easter symbols (bunnies, eggs, chickens) were originally pagan, but were re-defined to bear a Christian meaning now.
Contextualization is still common practice for mission work today.

The dating of Easter is another piece of evidence for pagan influence. Easter should be celebrated during the Jewish Passover, however, in most years, the dates differ.

I'd say, the Easter celebration is not unbiblical, though not really biblical either. I'd call it non-biblical. And it certainly is nothing to stay away from, or to judge people who participate. Colossians 2:16

(Personally, I wouldn't mind a major reformation of the Christian festivals: As Jesus is the Passover lamb who was slain for us, Easter should co-incide with Passover. The Pentecost date would have to be adapted accordingly. And instead of the first coming, it might be more appropriate to celebrate the second coming in advance; just by considering and comparing the amount of Scripture dedicated to these two events it becomes obvious which one is the more important one - not to mention that christianish people get the impression that Jesus is just a little baby; but that's something to discuss in December...)

C Mc

Thanks for the contribution. It's good to hear from you.

Jan, in order for me and others to follow you and your line of reasoning a definition or a background of the term used may be helpful. This I have taken the liberty if you don't mine to share. I don't know how many CD Users have been exposed to the teachings of "mission." Contextualization: It was first articulated in the discussions of the World Council of Churches in the early 1970s.

The word contextualization, coined in 1972 by Shoki Coe of Taiwan. This term first appeared that same year in a publication of the Theological Education Fund entitled “Ministry in Context” by the World Council of Churches Theological Education Fund (TEF). In that document, there is one of the first attempted definitions of a very new missiological term; contextualisation.

According to the Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions: There is no single or broadly accepted definition of contextualization. The goal of contextualization perhaps best defines what it is. That goal is to enable, insofar as it is humanly possible, an understanding of what it means that Yeshua Christ, the Word, is authentically experienced in each and every human situation. Contextualization means that the Word must dwell among all families of humankind today as truly as Yeshua lived among his own kin. The gospel is Good News when it provides answers for a particular people living in a particular place at a particular time. This means the worldview of that people provide a framework for communication. The questions and needs of that people are a guide to the emphasis of the message, and the cultural gifts of that people become the medium of expression. (Gilliland 2000, article: Contextualization).

A working definition of the term contextualization can only be understood if we can first agree on some presuppositions.

• Firstly, proponents of contextualization believe that the core of the gospel is valid for all cultures and times.
• Secondly, however, they recognize that such a gospel must be clothed in time-specific cultural forms in order for it to be communicated and understood.

I hope this brief, broad background will prove to be helpful. I can share the Three Common Positions of contextualization if anyone is interested. CM

Jan

I once had access to course MI102 ("Current Issues in Missions") as part of a Mobile Ed trial. It contains about 10 segments on contextualization. That course was a real eye opener, on a whole range of topics.

dct112685

@Dave_L said:
For starters I believe Easter is a pagan holiday and it is doubtful Jesus was crucified on "good Friday". But it is a celebration nonetheless of his death, burial, and resurrection. And for this reason I believe it is a good practice. Just as Christmas helps keep Jesus' name in the forefront.

Jesus was absolutely crucified on Good Friday and we know that with certainty as it coincided with Passover.

Dave_L

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:
For starters I believe Easter is a pagan holiday and it is doubtful Jesus was crucified on "good Friday". But it is a celebration nonetheless of his death, burial, and resurrection. And for this reason I believe it is a good practice. Just as Christmas helps keep Jesus' name in the forefront.

Jesus was absolutely crucified on Good Friday and we know that with certainty as it coincided with Passover.

What about 3 days and 3 nights in the tomb?

GaoLu

@Jan said:
I once had access to course MI102 ("Current Issues in Missions") as part of a Mobile Ed trial. It contains about 10 segments on contextualization. That course was a real eye opener, on a whole range of topics.

I second the value of that course. It is good.

C Mc

@Jan said:
I believe we might be looking at an ancient example of contextualization here. Quite possibly, several of the Easter symbols (bunnies, eggs, chickens) were originally pagan, but were re-defined to bear a Christian meaning now.
Contextualization is still common practice for mission work today.

The dating of Easter is another piece of evidence for pagan influence. Easter should be celebrated during the Jewish Passover, however, in most years, the dates differ.

I'd say, the Easter celebration is not unbiblical, though not really biblical either. I'd call it non-biblical. And it certainly is nothing to stay away from, or to judge people who participate. Colossians 2:16

Jan,

In one's quest to implement a form of contextualization, is it not, there a change of baptizing paganism? That is having one's cake and eating it too? If we are not careful, any and everything would be acceptable.

In essence, what I am saying is that "contextualization" can be a blessing and a slippery slope, short of establishing guardrails of biblical-cultural truth. I am referring the necessity of "Critical Contextualization". This is when “old beliefs and customs are neither rejected nor accepted without examination.” It the best way to deal with the old cultural symbols (bunnies, eggs, chickens) and meanings.

"Critical contextualization" was a term coined by Paul G. Hiebert. It is a process that evaluates old traditional beliefs in light of biblical principles. Instead of disregarding all the old traditional beliefs, they can be evaluated to see which ones agree with the Bible and which ones do not.

Another advantage of this approach is that critical contextualization does not produce a cultural vacuum by destroying so much of a culture. Instead, it takes those old cultural structures and symbols which are not contradictory to the biblical principles and incorporates them into the new Christian way of life. "Critical contextualization" is best done when the new converts are involved in the process since they can tell whether a practice is in agreement with the Bible. A way forward. CM

Source:
Hiebert, Paul G. Anthropological Insights for Missionaries. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1985. pg 186.

C Mc

Corrections:

• "...is it not, there a chance of baptizing paganism?

• "It's the best way to deal with the old cultural..." CM

C Mc

To stay on topic at hand: I agree with you that there exists no clear biblical reason for observing Easter as a religious festival.

@Dave_L said:

What about 3 days and 3 nights in the tomb?

For starters, the disciples had been eyewitnesses to the wonders Jesus had done, they obviously didn't believe he had actually risen from the dead.

For a time, the words of John were also appropriate in describing Christ's followers, John 12:37, "But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him:"

Jesus prophesied in John 2:19-22, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."

Today, we know that He meant that the temple would be his physical body, but his followers missed the point. Because of this, following his death, gloom set in as his followers mourned.

We read in Mark 16:9-14 that when told of Jesus' resurrection they simply didn't believe it.

John's description of them paints the group as a cowardly company hiding out in a little room, John 20:19, "...when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews," John 20:19. CM

[Deleted User]

@davidtaylorjr said:
Jesus was absolutely crucified on Good Friday and we know that with certainty as it coincided with Passover.

?? how did Friday "coincide" with Passover? because Friday was the day before the weekly sabbath?

with "Passover", are you referring to the Passover meal eaten before the 7 day feast, also known as "feast of unleavened bread"? or are you referring to the feast of Passover?

Could you explain how your theology accounts for 3 days AND 3 nights (not part days, not part nights) time Jesus was buried in the grave?

Simple detailed answers to the questions would be appreciated ... dodging and generalization evasion really would not help.

Jan

@Wolfgang said:
Could you explain how your theology accounts for 3 days AND 3 nights (not part days, not part nights) time Jesus was buried in the grave?

Why does it have to account for 3 full days and 3 full nights? How do you know that this is the meaning? A day and a night, in Hebrew, might count as a single unit. Compare Esther 4:16 and Esther 5:1: On the third day is the same as after three days and three nights.

So the first day and night is Friday; the second day and night is the Sabbath; the third day and night is Easter Sunday.

GaoLu

Right. It's a basic ideogrammatic matter. In brief:

A Jewish Idiom
The key to resolving the issue lies in an understanding of Jewish idioms. The Jewish idiomatic phrase, “three days and three nights” includes enough linguistic flexibility to cover a period of time from Friday evening to Sunday morning. Historically, the phrase was used to distinguish the daytime (dawn to dusk) sense of the word “day” from the 24-hour cycle sense of the word “day.” So if a writer wanted to refer to parts of a 24-hour period and not just the daytime aspect of the term “day,” that person would use the Jewish idiom, “a day and a night.”

In Jewish thought, a day referred to the whole 24-hour period or a part of the day (1 Sam. 30:12-13; 2 Chron. 10:5, 12; Esther 4:1; 5:1). So, as D.A. Carson points out in the Expositors Bible Commentary, the phrase “three days and three nights” cannot mean more than three full days, but it can refer to a combination of any part of three separate days. And since Christ remained dead for a portion of three 24-hour days – Friday, Saturday and Sunday – it would be correct to express the account by saying, “three days and three nights.”

To understand this passage, we have to think about the concept of time in the Jewish sense, not in our 21st century Western sense.

C Mc

@Wolfgang said:

Could you explain how your theology accounts for 3 days AND 3 nights (not part days, not part nights) time Jesus was buried in the grave?

My contribution to the discussion, a community move toward better understanding of the Word:

It should be observed that the same Saviour who said in Matthew 12:40, "three days and three nights," said also in Mark 8:31, "after three days," and "in three days," John 2:19; and on five occasions "the third day." Hence, in the mind of the Master these expressions must have meant one and the same thing. In other words, He used these three forms in referring to the period which would elapse between His crucifixion and His resurrection. Granted, they may seem different to us. They convey different shades of meanings to our minds.

Perhaps the strongest expression of all, if we take it literally, would be "after three days," for that would mean not only three full days of twenty-four hours each but some hours after. Then there is the expression "three days and three nights." If we push that to its full value, then we have seventy-two hours. But when we come to the expression "the third day," even in a Western method of speaking, at most this would be two full days and part of a third.

Consequently, we shall be led into difficulties if we push the meaning of the expression, "three days and three nights," as being a literal seventy-two-hour period. It must be evident that if this expression, together with the expression "after three days," is to be understood in its full value so far as hours are concerned, then Jesus rose from the dead not on the third day but on the fourth day. That, of course, would be contrary to the many passages which teach that He rose from the dead "the third day according to the scriptures." 1 Cor. 15:4.

Inasmuch as all these expressions are found in the in the Bible, and are of equal value and inspiration, it is certainly advisable that we give careful and thoughtful study to all aspects of the question, so that complete harmony may be seen in all the passages concerned. Keep reading... CM

C Mc

@Dave_L said:

Jesus was absolutely crucified on Good Friday and we know that with certainty as it coincided with Passover.

What about 3 days and 3 nights in the tomb?

These expressions are used by** JEWISH AND OTHER AUTHORITIES**.

We must remember that we are dealing with an expression in common use among the Jews, and it would certainly be well to understand the Jewish viewpoint. It would hardly be correct for us to impose Western understanding of language on Eastern terms and expressions.

First, observe the following from Greek authorities:

"In the Jewish mode of reckoning time, by which small parts of days were counted as whole days, and accordingly a space of time, not two whole days might be computed as three days and nights."--S. T. Bloom-Field, The Greek Testament With English Notes (London: Longman, Brown, Green and Longmans, 1847), vol. 1, p. 71.

"In the Jerusalem Talmud (cited by Lightfoot ) it is said 'that a day and night together make up a … night day, and that any part of such a period is counted as the whole.' "—Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (London: Rivingtons, 1868), vol. 1, p. 133, col. 2.

"So far as I can learn the effort to locate the death of Jesus on Wednesday is due to the wish to interpret 'after three days' literally and in opposition to 'on the third day' for the day of Resurrection of Jesus. In simple truth if 'after three days' has to mean after seventy-two hours, that would be on the fourth day, not on the third day, a flat and hopeless contradiction. The use of 'after three days' is simply a more or less free vernacular idiom such as we use today and is easily understood in harmony with 'on the third day.'" —A. T. Robertson, Expositor (in answer to a question).

"In common with other nations, the Jews reckoned any part of a period of time for the whole, as in Exodus 16:35. Attention to this circumstance will explain apparent contradictions in the sacred writings; thus, a part of a day is used for the whole, and part of a year for the entire year."—Thomas H. Horne, An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures (London: C. T. Cadell), vol. 3, p. 180.

Secondly, Jewish authorities-- Notice the following from the Jewish Encyclopedia and Abenezra:

• "In Jewish communal life part of a day is at times reckoned as one day; e.g., the day of the funeral, even when the latter takes place late in the afternoon, is counted as the first of the seven days of mourning; a short time in the morning of the seventh day is counted as the seventh day; circumcision takes place on the eighth day, even though of the first day only a few minutes remained after the birth of the child, these being counted as one day. Again, a man who hears of a vow made by his wife or his daughter, and desires to cancel the vow, must do so on the same day on which he hears of it, as otherwise, the protest has no effect; even if the hearing takes place a little before night, the annulment must be done within that little times."--Jewish Encyclopedia, Art. "Day" (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1903), vol. 4, p. 475.

• "Abenezra, an eminent Jewish commentator, on Leviticus 12:3 says, that if an infant were born in the last hour of the day, such hour was counted for one whole day,"—THOMAS H. HORNE, An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scripture(London: C. T. Cadell), vol. 3, P. 180.

Thirdly, note the following instances from the writings of Josephus:

1. That the eighth day means within that number of days. (Antiquities, book I, chap. 12, par. 2.)
2. That after three days means the third day. (Antiquities, book 8, chap. 8, pars. 1, 2.)
3. That forty afterward means the fortieth day. (Wars, book I, chap. 6, par, 2.)
4. That the five days means the fifth day. We read:

• "This way of speaking, after forty days, is inter­preted by Josephus himself, on the fortieth day... In like manner, when Josephus says, . . . that Herod lived after he had ordered Antipater to be slain five days, this is by himself interpreted…on the fifth day afterward."

Fourthly, the NT Voices: There is a real Scriptural basis for the belief that Jesus was cruci­fied and buried on Friday, rested in the tomb over the Sabbath, and rose from the dead on Sunday, the first day of the week. In the light of these findings, there should be no difficulty in understanding the words of Jesus in Matthew 12:40.

Although it is instructive to know the facts regarding the time Jesus was in the tomb and to understand the harmony of the Scriptures which relate to this great event, the all-important thing is to know that Christ "was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification" (Rom. 4:25). What a glorious and blessed truth is emphasized by Paul to the Gentiles when he declares:

• "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3, 4).

I hope this adds to your understanding, faith, and the Inspired Word of God. CM

Dave_L

@C_M_ said:

@Dave_L said:

Jesus was absolutely crucified on Good Friday and we know that with certainty as it coincided with Passover.

What about 3 days and 3 nights in the tomb?

These expressions are used by** JEWISH AND OTHER AUTHORITIES**.

What about the six days of creation? were they literal days? What about keeping the Sabbath on the seventh day? These passages define what scripture means by Days. So, how would 3 days and nights not be 72 hours?

[Deleted User]

"Good Friday burial - Sunday morning resurrection" folks ... seems that there should only be one sabbath involved in this time frame?

Mk 15,47 And Mary Magdalene and Mary [the mother] of Joses beheld where he was laid.
Mk 16,1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the [mother] of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

What do these verses tell us about the women and when they bought spices in order to prepare them and anointed the body ... did they go shopping "when the sabbath was past" or had they done so "before the sabbath"?

Lk 23,55 And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid.
Lk 23,56 And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.

What do these verses tells us about the women and when they prepared spices and ointments? How could they prepare these when - according to the other verses - they did not buy spices and ointments until after the sabbath?

To me, the story is plain and clear => there were two sabbaths involved, and there was a day in between the first (somewhere also called "a high sabbath / holy convocation") and the weekly sabbath.

The problem is - as in other instances of church traditions dictating most folks' picture of how they read the Bible - not that Scripture has problems or contradictions but that the church doctrine of "Good Friday - Sunday morning" is false.

GaoLu

I am not at all clear.
1. How long do you think Jesus was in the grave? More than a week? (2 sabbaths)
2. Do you think there was more than one Sabbath a week?

Dave_L

@GaoLu said:
I am not at all clear.
1. How long do you think Jesus was in the grave? More than a week? (2 sabbaths)
2. Do you think there was more than one Sabbath a week?

If the Sabbath was based on 24 hour days, and Creation based on 6 literal days according to Jesus, why would Jesus not have been in the grave for 72 hours?

[Deleted User]

@GaoLu said:
I am not at all clear.
1. How long do you think Jesus was in the grave? More than a week? (2 sabbaths)#

I think, Jesus was in the grave 3 days and 3 nights ... just as he had said!

3 days and 3 nights do not require "more than a week"

And since the gospel records indicate there was more than one sabbath involved, it should be clear that the "3 days and 3 nights" in this case are not a Jewish idiom to explain Friday to Sunday ...

As for the sabbaths, I suggest you have a better look at the narratives in the gospels, rather than believing false church doctrine,

GaoLu

Oh you guys! This is getting funny--all the wild assumptions being made.

@Dave_L

If the Sabbath was based on 24 hour days, and Creation based on 6 literal days according to Jesus, why would Jesus not have been in the grave for 72 hours?

1. I haven't offered any view about how long Jesus was in the grave
2. I don't have a clue what you are saying. The words are English, but...

@Wolfgang

I think, Jesus was in the grave 3 days and 3 nights ... just as he had said!

3 days and 3 nights do not require "more than a week"

Right. That seems very logical.

And since the gospel records indicate there was more than one sabbath involved, it should be clear that the "3 days and 3 nights" in this case are not a Jewish idiom to explain Friday to Sunday ...

I just always thought that there was one Sabbath a week. Maybe you know something I do not? Please share.

As for the sabbaths, I suggest you have a better look at the narratives in the gospels, rather than believing false church doctrine,

1. Did I tell you what I believe about this anywhere? I did offer a quote from a commentary on the topic, but that is not my writing, but someone else's and not necessarily what I think at all.
2. I am not familiar with false church doctrine on the matter.

Now....back the real question which you deftly skirted: Please inform me how Jesus was buried for two Sabbaths and 3 days since that is what you assert.

[Deleted User]

@GaoLu said:
I just always thought that there was one Sabbath a week. Maybe you know something I do not? Please share.

There are weekly sabbath (to what you seem to be referring), and with certain annual feasts there were special/high sabbath days at the beginning / end of such feasts ... no matter whether these days fell on a weekly sabbath or (most often) did not coincide with a weekly sabbath.

As for the sabbaths, I suggest you have a better look at the narratives in the gospels, rather than believing false church doctrine,

1. Did I tell you what I believe about this anywhere? I did offer a quote from a commentary on the topic, but that is not my writing, but someone else's and not necessarily what I think at all.

Come on .... trying to dodge things now, GaoLu? Did you give anywhere the impression you did not believe the church doctrine of Friday-Sunday ???

2. I am not familiar with false church doctrine on the matter.

Which church doctrine on the matter do you believe? One that accounts for 3 days and 3 nights as well as 2 sabbaths, or a different one (such as the one I mentioned above)?

Now....back the real question which you deftly skirted: Please inform me how Jesus was buried for two Sabbaths and 3 days since that is what you assert.

Consider that Jesus was buried NOT before the weekly sabbath, but before a high sabbath, the first day of the 7 day feast which started on Nisan 15 ... Joh 19,31 ("The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and [that] they might be taken away.")

Then consider that the gospel records state that Jesus was already resurrected very early on the first day while it was yet dark (which would be very early on the day following the weekly sabbath).

Then consider that Jesus was buried in late afternoon, just before sunset and the beginning of the next day. Thus, 3 days and 3 nights later would be the resurrection in the late afternoon as well.

Then establish from very early morning when Jesus had already been resurrected to the closest late afternoon prior as the point of the resurrection (obviously the late afternoon as the weekly sabbath was coming to an end)

Then calculate 3 days and 3 nights (3 full days of 24 hours) from that point in time backwards into the week, and you will easily see how Jesus died in the afternoon of Wednesday, Nisan 14, was buried just prior to the beginning of the next day, Thursday, Nisan 15 - high sabbath, fist day of the feast, 1st night in the grave, Thursday day was 1st day in grave, Thur-Fri night was 2nd night in the grave, Fri day was 2nd day in the grave, Fri-Sat night was 3rd night in grave, Sat (weekly sabbath) day was 3rd day in the grave, resurrected at about same time in late afternoon as he had been buried 3 days and 3 nights before.

I took the time to explain to you what I would have thought someone like you would have figured out long time ago ...

Of course, it's everyone's privilege to try and explain whatever .... keep Fri-Sun and disregard the mention of 2 sabbaths (high sabbath and weekly sabbath) in the records, or perhaps claim the records in the gospels contradict, or whatever.

[Deleted User]

further insights on the matter, anyone?

C Mc

@Jan said:
I believe we might be looking at an ancient example of contextualization here. Quite possibly, several of the Easter symbols (bunnies, eggs, chickens) were originally pagan, but were re-defined to bear a Christian meaning now.

In their work, Passover: Before Messiah and After, Donna and Mal Broadhurst trace the origin of Easter to Ishtar, the Sumerian goddess of love and war who, in Canaan, evolved into the moon goddess and wife Baal. According to the Sumerian legend, Ishtar was the wife of the Sumerian god, Tammuz.They pointed out:

"It is probable that Eostra/Ostara is the Anglo-Saxon version of Ishtar, the Sumerian goddess of love and war who in Canaan evolved into a moon goddess and wife of Baal. According to Sumerian lore, Ishtar was the wife of the Summerian god, Tammuz. Both are spoken of in the Bible–Tammuz in Ezekiel 8:14 and Ishtar, called Ashtoreth and Queen of Heaven, in Judges 2:13, Judges 10:6, Jeremiah 44:17, and elsewhere.

"When Tammuz died, Ishtar followed him to the underworld, leaving the earth deprived of its fertility. She and Tammuz were rescued from death when the Queen of the Dead allowed a heavenly messenger to sprinkle them with the water of life. This allowed them to return to the light of the sun for six months of each year. For the other six they had to return to the land of death.

"The worship of Ishtar as a nature goddess had spread throughout the ancient world. In Phoenicia and Syria her name had become Astarte. Her husband earlier called Baal, and known as Tammuz farther east, became Adon and Adonai in Phoenicia and Syria. In Greece, Ishtar and Tammuz became Aphrodide and Adonis; in Asia Minor they became Cybele and Attis. Diana of the Ephesians (Acts 19:27) probably traces to Ishtar."

The dating of Easter is another piece of evidence for pagan influence. Easter should be celebrated during the Jewish Passover, however, in most years, the dates differ.

I'd say, the Easter celebration is not unbiblical, though not really biblical either. I'd call it non-biblical. And it certainly is nothing to stay away from, or to judge people who participate. Colossians 2:16

An interesting find: Eastre: Anglo-Saxon Spring Goddess. The process which led Christianity to clothe itself in paganism began when Gentile Christians gained control of the Church, and it continued during the Middle Ages when hordes of Barbarians entered the Church with their superstitious beliefs.

You are right: Passover was renamed "Easter," which derives from Eostre, Eastur, Ostara, Ostar, terms used by the Norsemen (ancient Scandinavians) to refer to the season of the rising sun. According to Bede (ca. A. D. 673-735), the "Father of English History," the word "Easter" is derived from Eastre, an Anglo-Saxon spring goddess to whom sacrifices were offered at the vernal equinox (March 21). "This pagan festival probably gave way to the Christian celebration of the resurrection."

Who was Bede(ca. 673-735),

     Star author of the twin monastery of Monkwearmouth-Jarrow, is most famous for his 'History of the English Church and People'. Today it is known for Bede acknowledgement of his sources: he gave footnotes saying where he got his information. He wrote it around 731 for the saintly but ineffective Ceolwulf, King of Northumbria, who was in that year forcibly 'retired' and tonsured as a monk, although he soon returned to the throne. In the book, Bede tells the story of the Anglo-Saxons becoming a Christian people and, although politically still divided into several kingdoms, united in destiny as a nation. It remained a best-seller for a few centuries. This 12th-century copy, made at Kirkham Abbey, Yorkshire, was included in a manuscript containing other works of Bede, histories, and material on saints. The preface of the 'History' begins with Bede's address to King Ceolfrid, telling him that he sends the book for a second time so that he may study it carefully. Bede acknowledges the help of Abbot Albinus, the abbot of the monastery of St Peter and St Paul, Canterbury. Between the lines, a few corrections were noted by a reader. The initial with a fantastic beast is conventional 12th-century manuscript decoration.

Wow, history shines a light once again. CM

GaoLu

@Wolfgang said:

@GaoLu said:
I just always thought that there was one Sabbath a week. Maybe you know something I do not? Please share.

There are weekly sabbath (to what you seem to be referring), and with certain annual feasts there were special/high sabbath days at the beginning / end of such feasts ... no matter whether these days fell on a weekly sabbath or (most often) did not coincide with a weekly sabbath.

Now I follow what you were saying. My dumb for not getting it before. Thanks.

As for the sabbaths, I suggest you have a better look at the narratives in the gospels, rather than believing false church doctrine,

1. Did I tell you what I believe about this anywhere? I did offer a quote from a commentary on the topic, but that is not my writing, but someone else's and not necessarily what I think at all.

Come on .... trying to dodge things now, GaoLu? Did you give anywhere the impression you did not believe the church doctrine of Friday-Sunday ???

I suppose I didn't offer any such impression. As far as I remember, I didn't indicate either direction. Being something of a waffler on the matter, I am not doggedly sure at all which days it was. I've read arguments for Wed, Thu, and Fri. They all have some decent reason to them. It has never mattered that much to me. Why should it? I am open to reproof if I should be more adamant on the matter.

2. I am not familiar with false church doctrine on the matter.

Which church doctrine on the matter do you believe? One that accounts for 3 days and 3 nights as well as 2 sabbaths, or a different one (such as the one I mentioned above)?

I think they all have some plausibility. I probably lean very slightly more toward F-S because it seems fits my thinking fairly well. But any of the 3 are possible and I am not overly concerned with which is right--an interesting matter, but a backwater issue at best. Please offer counsel if I need to be more dogmatic in my thinking about this matter.

Now....back the real question which you deftly skirted: Please inform me how Jesus was buried for two Sabbaths and 3 days since that is what you assert.

Consider that Jesus was buried NOT before the weekly Sabbath, but before a high Sabbath, the first day of the 7-day feast which started on Nisan 15 ... Joh 19,31 ("The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and [that] they might be taken away.")

With all respect, those are not my assertions. I don't even recall who made them though I could look it up. Was it DA Carson? I thought the 2 Sabbath assertion was yours! How silly we can get in our little mistakes.

I took the time to explain to you what I would have thought someone like you would have figured out long time ago ...

Thank you Wolfgang, and you did a good job of it. One of the clearest and best I have seen.

Of course, it's everyone's privilege to try and explain whatever .... keep Fri-Sun and disregard the mention of 2 sabbaths (high sabbath and weekly sabbath) in the records, or perhaps claim the records in the gospels contradict, or whatever.

You offer some helpful insights. Thanks. I am not sure exactly how it all was. Thanks for your clear and interesting and well-presented view.

C Mc

Opps.

Mitchell

The word contextualization, coined in 1972 by Shoki Coe of Taiwan. This term first appeared that same year

However, according to the 'Online Etymology Dictionary' the term, 'contextual' existed in 1822, and was first used in philosophical writing in 1873, and in 1930 the term contextualization was first used. Both the for mentioned Dictionary as well as the 6th edition of Kenkyusha's new English-Japanese dictionary state that term contextualize first recorded use was in 1934. If, that is correct then I believe that Shoki Coe repurposed an existing word for use in theology, rather outright creating/coining a new one.