I am shocked
at the statements being passed off as truth on the Internet these days. Here
is very short a list of the some of the unsubstantiated claims that are out
there:
•
Sun-worshippers went to their temples weekly, on Sunday, to worship the
Sun-god.
•
Nimrod’s wife was Semiramis, who claimed to be the Virgin Queen of Heaven, and
was the mother of Tammuz.
•
Tammuz was killed by a wild boar when he was age 40; so 40 days of Lent were
set aside to honor his death.
• The
Babylonians wept for him on “Good Friday.” They worshipped a cross-the initial
letter of his name.
These
and similar claims, popular as they may be on the Internet, are patently
ridiculous. They are unfounded and unverifiable. People who pass on these lies
all claim to love the truth. I shudder for the truth! Just try to find proof
for these claims in ancient documents and you cannot. Drill down and you will
come to a dead end. Why? Because they’re made up! Wouldn’t you expect to be
able to provide solid evidence for something if it’s is true? Yet
well-intentioned people propagate these tales regardless.
Mistake
#1 is not discerning the quality of your source of information. Be warned, dear
reader: DO NOT mistake Alexander Hislop for a reliable authority on anything.
(Someone please tell Chuck Missler about this.) Mistake #2 is believing
everything you see in an info-graphic. Just because someone uses Photoshop to
make a picture that looks great and puts it on Facebook doesn’t mean they’re
telling the truth.
Such
errors are published in church publications and websites (in some cases
intentionally) and make their way to church radio programs and even into
generally respectable resources like the Encyclopedia. Well, a large part of
the reason why As Bereans Did exists is to warn against lying and bearing false
witness! We dig down, as the noble Bereans did, and we bring you the hard
facts.
To that
end, we have devised this quick reference FAQ for you. I must make my answers
short, rather than comprehensive. Resources will be left at the end of the post
for you to use in further study.
Is
Easter a pagan holiday coopted by the Catholic Church?
No. Easter is not a prior pagan holiday adopted into Christianity by the
Catholic Church. Easter is simply the English name for the New Covenant
Passover; the annual remembrance of the Last Supper. By whatever name, this one
feast has been observed by the entire unified Church from the start.
Most
languages refer to it as Pascha, or something similar, which comes from the
Hebrew word Pesach. Only German and English (which is a Germanic language) use another
name altogether. In English the name is Easter, in German the name is Ostern.
Was
Passover replaced by Easter at the Council of Nicaea?
No. There
was no ancient Babylonian “Easter”. The only name used before and after Nicaea
is “Pascha”. There were not two separate festivals being argued over, there was
only one. Timing of the one festival was the issue. The Council of Nicaea standardized
the time for the annual remembrance of the Lord’s Supper and the end of the
Lenten fast.
The
debate was whether to observe Pascha on a random day of the week, whenever the
Jews decided it was Nisan 14, or whether to hold Pascha on a set day of the
week, independent of the Jews. The church was divided since most people found
it prohibitive to follow the Hebrew calendar to determine when to observe
Pascha. Not 30 years after Nicaea, the Hebrews decided they couldn’t follow the
Hebrew calendar either, so Rabbi Hillel II completely revamped their calendar
system.
Should
we call Easter by the name Passover?
It
doesn’t accomplish much. Since Passover is generally considered to be the name
of the Jewish Old Covenant observance, it might be best to avoid confusion and
not use this particular name. At any rate, the name and details of celebration
do not matter so long as the spirit remains the same: the death and
resurrection of Jesus Christ. Obsessing over names is at best a distraction.
But
you should know that the name “Passover” is every bit as much a construct of
the English language as Easter is. Pentecost, that’s a Helenistic Greek name.
Nissan, that’s a Babylonian name. Abib, that’s a Canaanite name.
Is
the King James Version right in translating Acts 12: 4 as “Easter”?
Yes
and no. This is more a matter of opinion, but since the KJV is an English
translation, and the English word for Pascha is Easter, then Easter is a
correct translation of Pascha. Problem is Easter is only the correct
translation of Pascha if it refers to the New Covenant Passover of the
Christians and not the Old Covenant Passover of the Jews. Acts 12: 4 is talking
about Herod pleasing the Jews in Judea, so it probably is referring to the Old
Covenant Passover of the Jews, and therefore it is my personal opinion that
Easter is probably not correct here. Most Bible translations do not say
“Easter”.
When
is Easter?
The
Council of Nicaea decided to set the date as the first Sunday after the first
full moon on or after the Vernal Equinox. This formula sets the date, yet keeps
it close to the actual time when Jesus ate the Last Supper. Anciently, Passover
was generally on the first full moon on or after the Vernal Equinox.
The
Roman Catholics still follow this formula while the Orthodox set their Easter
using the Julian Calendar and these 4 criteria: 1) after the Vernal Equinox,
and 2) after the Jewish Passover, and 3) with a full moon, and 4) after March
21st.
Is
Easter tied to the Spring Equinox because of paganism?
No. It
has nothing to do with paganism at all. It has to do with Judaism. The timing
for Easter was chosen because at that time Passover was generally on the full
moon on or after the equinox. One of the main reasons for Hillel II’s calendar
reforms was to better predict when the Passover new moon would be before the
spring equinox. The formula agreed to at Nicaea sets the date on a Sunday, yet
keeps it close to the actual time when Jesus ate the Last Supper.
Is
the Pope responsible for the change from Passover to Easter?
No.
First, Jesus is responsible for the change from the Old Covenant Passover to
the New Covenant Passover. Second, Easter is the New Covenant Passover. Third,
the Pope wasn’t even at the Council of Nicaea. He sent two representatives to
be there in his place; two out of some 220 Bishops, yet they all still agreed
to the set timing of Pascha. Nothing at Nicaea was forced on the Church by the
“evil” Catholics. At that time the church was more dominated by the eastern
Greek cities, not the western Latin cities. In fact the major controversy at
Nicaea involved Alexandria, Egypt.
Is
Easter named after a goddess?
No.
Easter is named after a month. Easter gets its name from the old German month
Ostarmonath, in which the Paschal Season began.
The
month may or may have gotten its name from a goddess, but most likely didn’t.
The Venerable Bede says the month got its name from a defunct German goddess
named Eostra, but no one has found evidence of such a goddess outside of a
brief mention in Bede’s book. Others theorize the month got its name because ostar
means east or eastward, and by extension implies dawn and Spring. Ostarmonath can
also mean “month of opening”, referring to the buds on trees and etc, and by
extension means Spring.
What
of the goddess Ostara, then?
No
evidence of such a goddess exists. The Venerable Bede mentions a defunct German
goddess named Eostra, but that was probably speculation on Bede’s part. Bede
did speculate about goddesses elsewhere in his book, so it is plausible that he
speculated here.
In
1835, Jacob Grimm, of the Grimm Brothers fairy tales, wrote a book called
“German Mythology”. Grimm had a deep respect for Bede and tried to hypothesize
a way that Bede could have been right. Grimm, while admitting that there was no
evidence to be found for Eostra, speculated that perhaps there was a goddess of
the dawn named Ostara. I cannot say why Grimm thought it wise to invent a
goddess in order to spare Bede from having invented a goddess. But the first
problem remains - it’s all invented! None of this is based on solid evidence.
Bede is the first and only source for Eostra and Grimm the first
and only source for Ostara. All descriptions of said goddess - her appearance,
companions, rites associated with her, etc - are outright fabricated or are improperly
borrowed from Norse goddesses such as Freya. We strongly disagree with this
practice.
What of the Austriahenae inscriptions?
In several hundred years of searching, the only potential evidence found for Eostra are some inscriptions in Latin that were found in 1958 near Morken-Harff, Germany. They date to hundreds of years before Bede, so that’s a good start.
The inscriptions mention goddesses, plural, not singular. That they are all found in one place indicates that they are local and not wide-spread goddesses. The goddesses are called by the umbrella title of "Mothers Austria-henae". ‘Austria’ could mean about anything, including a place name. There are several other goddesses with this –henae suffix (eg. Gesahenae, Mediotautehae, Albiahenae, Berguiahenae), and none of the prefixes in those instances are proper nouns, only vague descriptions of places or objects. Matron goddesses usually come in threes. So we don’t have one widespread goddess named Eostra, we have multiple, local goddesses whose title, “Austria”, could mean about anything.
Was
Ostara’s consort a hare?
No, Eostra/Ostara’s
consort was not a hare or a rabbit. None have yet found evidence of Eostra/Ostara.
Period. If we cannot find this goddess, then it should go without saying that
no one has ever found evidence of her consort. Until we do find some evidence
to base this claim on, we can conclusively say no to it. Most people just
assume Eostra/Ostara is another regional goddess, such as Freya, and run with
that. But the stories conjured up don’t really match Freya either!
I
cannot tell you how exceedingly many websites I have been to that parrot
invented claims about Eostra/Ostara. I’m estimating some 9 out of 10 websites
on the subject mention Eostra/Ostara. None are documented, some are quite
elaborate in their claims, but few match each other. I have heard that
Eostra/Ostara had a hare as a consort, had the head of a hare, had a rabbit
following, was honored with rabbits and eggs, was the goddess of the dawn, was
the goddess of fertility, was honored on Easter day, was honored for a full
month… the claims go on and on and on.
Is Eostra/Ostara
actually Ishtar?
No.
There is no record of any goddess Eostra outside of Bede’s “The Reckoning of
Time” and there is no evidence for Ostara outside of Grimm’s “German
Mythology”, so there is no evidence at all for such a claim relating them to
Ishtar. The claim is based on nothing but shady etymology. These names are an
example of what is what etymologists call a “false cognate” or “false friend”.
The
words sound alike and backstory is imagined from there. Easter does not get its
name from Ishtar nor any other goddess related to Ishtar. Easter has as much to
do with Ishtar as Australia has to do with the Norse god Austr.
Did
Easter start in Nimrod’s day?
No.
That is an outright lie built on terrible etymology and pseudo-history, and
passed off as fact due to repetition. There is nothing remotely in the realm of
reliable historical evidence to demonstrate this. All of these sorts of Nimrod,
Ishtar, Tammuz, etc claims find their beginning with Alexander Hislop. He’s the
one who made it all up in the late 1840’s. Maybe you didn’t know that Hislop is
completely unreliable. I can hardly blame you for not knowing this. Among the
people who promote his writings are Herbert Armstrong and thus the leaders of
every one of the COG splinter churches, Dave Hunt, Chuck Missler, Richard
Rives, the Christadelphians, the Jehovah’s Witnesses – the list goes on and on.
But if you really want the truth about Hislop, then please send away for Mr.
Ralph Woodrow’s book “The
Babylon Connection”. It will give you the information that you need to know
about Alexander Hislop.
Think
about it… Some people, following Alexander Hislop, say Easter is an ancient
Babylonian holiday that was kept continuously by the Catholic Church since
Nimrod’s day. But if it was always
being kept then it cannot be the result of the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. It
cannot be both.
If it
was the product of the Council of Nicaea then it cannot be the result of the
Catholic Church which only sent two representatives to the Council. It cannot
be both.
The
first mention of Eostre is in the eighth century, not the first century, nor
the fourth century, and certainly not 2,000+ BC. They can’t all be right.
The
early church called it Pascha and only several centuries later came the name
Easter. If Pascha is centuries older tha Easter then Easter cannot be the source of Pascha. It cannot be both.
What
kind of coincidence could possibly cause the holiday to be called Easter by the
Babylonians, then Pascha by the Greeks and Latins, then Ostern by the Germans,
then Easter once again by the English?
These
contradictions cannot all be true. Who will you believe? Don’t make up your
mind yet. There’s more.
Did
Ishtar hatch from an egg?
No. This
claim is absolute nonsense created quite recently and is being spread around
the Internet by people with an axe to grind against mainstream Christianity.
There is no historicity to this claim.
The
next time you see a silly claim like that, take a look at the sources cited. Take a look at the historical documents they use to build their case. I’ll bet you there aren’t any.
Did
Ishtar have rabbits and eggs as her symbols?
No. We
have no evidence of this. Ishtar’s main symbols were an eight-pointed star
(probably representing the planet Venus), a pair of lions, and snakes. Various
other symbols were also connected to Ishtar, but hares and eggs weren’t among
them. If at any point eggs and rabbits were associated with Ishtar, then they
were completely inconsequential. It makes no sense whatsoever that symbols not
even associated with Ishtar would be handed down in her honor for over 3,000
years while her main symbols were lost.
Where
does the tradition of eggs come from if not from paganism?
The
tradition of Easter Eggs comes from the Lentin prohibition against eating eggs.
Eggs could not be eaten during Lent, so they would be eaten up before Lent then
stored up and eaten after Lent. The first mention is from the 1400’s AD.
As for
coloring the eggs, no one seems to know where that started. The decorating of
eggs seems to come from many sources, some of which could perhaps come from
pagan tradition.
Some
say it started with the Persian New Year celebration, “Nowruz” (but these ones
never explain how it got to us). This is incredibly difficult to verify since I
do not read Persian and cannot verify any reliable source material. Some say it
began with the Ukranians and the Pysanky egg (a forged poem tying the pysansky
to paganism has been making the rounds on the Internet). Some people say it
started in Medieval England with the Pace egg (I find it interesting that pace
eggs were wrapped in onion skin, and that the word Pace comes from Pascha). Some people say it started with the Orthodox
who died eggs red to symbolize Jesus’ death then cracked the egg to symbolize
His resurrection (the Orthodox use symbolism quite a lot, so this is at least
plausible). Some people say it started with the ancient Chinese (again, no
explanation on how that came to us).
Lastly
we have the special group of people who just make up a story out of thin air
and say it came from Nimrod and Semiramis. Some people have determined in their
minds from the outset that eggs and rabbits absolutely must be pagan, and
therefore some pagan explanation must account for them. Notice how the outcome
was already determined at the outset. At that point, some people will accept
anything at all, so long as it appears to support their predetermined
conclusion. Beware of this, dear reader!
Though
I am completely unable to verify for certain, I suppose it is plausible that
the Orthodox Church adopted egg coloring from the Sarrasid Persians into the
Byzantine Empire. That might explain why colored eggs seem so popular in
Eastern Europe. It might also explain why both the Orthodox and Catholics have
this tradition. If you are going to be eating a lot of eggs after Lent anyway,
why not color them?
Where
does the tradition of the Easter Bunny come from?
No one
quite knows. Yes, rabbits have been fertility symbols for millennia – they have
been symbols for a great many things for millennia - but that is not prima
fasciae evidence that Christians stole rabbits from the pagans. We simply do
not know. But we do know the tradition is relatively recent and should not be
misused to poison the entire Easter holiday.
Hares
were very popular symbols among Christians in Medieval Europe, especially after
the Crusades. Because people in the Middle Ages were generally ignorant about
the life cycle of hares, they became symbols for a number of things. George
Ferguson in his book “Signs
and Symbols in Christian Art” p.20 sums a very long story up nicely as so:
“The
hare, itself defenseless, is a symbol of men who put the hope of their
salvation in the Christ and His Passion. It is also a well-known symbol of lust
and fecundity. A white hare is sometimes placed at the feet of the Virgin Mary
to indicate her triumph over lust.”
The
trail of the Easter Bunny starts in Europe, most likely the Protestants in the Alsace
region of Germany. Originally the animal was a hare, not a rabbit, and it was
called “Ostern Hase” which translates to Easter Hare. The first mention comes
from Georg Franck von Frankenau in his writing “De Ovis Paschalibus” [“On
Easter Eggs”] in 1682. He said:
“In
Alsace and the neighboring regions those eggs are called hare-eggs because of
the myth that is told to make the simple-minded and children believe that the
Easter Hare was laying and hiding them in the grass of the gardens, so the
children search them even more eagerly, for the delectation of the smiling
adults.”
The
Easter Hare eventually became much like Santa Claus, bringing treats to good
children and orphans. The Pennsylvania Dutch brought this tradition to the
Americas, and it has developed here ever since.
“Peter Cottontail” comes from a song whose
lyrics were written in 1949 by Jack Rollins (who also wrote Frosty the
Snowman). Music written by Steve Nelson, performed by Gene Autry.
Claims
of rank paganism are simply overstating the facts. It could be quite as
innocent as the tale related by Doctor von Frankenau. Since the Easter Bunny
traces its roots to the 1600’s, then I find it quite anachronistic to smear the
entire Easter festival on its account.
Is
Good Friday the day Babylonians wept for Tammuz?
No.
The weeping for Tammuz happened in the month of Tammuz, which is after Pascha
not before it.
“Good
Friday” is the English name for the Friday on which Jesus died.
Some
people do not accept that Jesus died on Friday, and that's fine since timing is trivial. Others cannot bare the notion, so they search for some
alternate explanation. Some are not above just making one up. But there is no
alternate explanation. The early church from the late first century really did
believe and teach that Jesus died on a Friday and rose on a Sunday. Whether
they were right or wrong, that is the explanation.
Is
the cross just the first letter of the name Tammuz?
No. This
claim is ridiculous. Tammuz, also pronounced Dammuz, is a very ancient
Sumerian/Chaldean god of vegetation. The people of that time didn’t have the
letter T. They wrote in Cuneiform. Chaldeans wouldn’t know what a T is. The Greeks
invented the first letter that looks like our modern T. But the Greeks didn’t
worship Tammuz; their version was called Adonis. They would have no reason to
associate the T with Adonis. Capital T still isn’t the correct shape anyhow;
lower case t is. Lower case letters were invented even later still.
It is
a well-established fact that crucifixes did have various shapes among which was
the classic shape. Anything with a T shape is considered “cruciform”, so strong
is the connection between that shape and crucifixion. Note that it is not
called “Tammuziform”. Whether the cross on which Jesus was executed was a
classic t or not is inconsequential. The cross represents the crucifixion of
Jesus Christ. It always has. There is absolutely no evidence that it has
anything to do with any other thing or any other god. Such claims are pure
speculation and imagination.
Does
Lent come from the weeping for Tammuz?
No. The
weeping for Tammuz happened in the month of Tammuz, which is three months after
Pascha, not before it. Tammuz is the fourth Hebrew month, whereas Lent ends at
Easter which is in the first Hebrew month.
The
weeping for Tammuz didn’t last 40 days. At first Lent didn’t last 40 days
either. Originally there were a variety of lengths and forms of fasting. Anyone
who claims that an ancient 40-day celebration is the genesis of Lent doesn’t
even have a grasp on the most basic facts.
Where
did Lent come from if not from paganism?
Lent
comes from the ancient Jewish tradition of fasting; particularly Lent comes
from the Fast of the Firstborn. A fast before Pascha is spoken of by Eusebius,
who relates a letter from Irenaeus, who himself relates its origins to be
handed down.
“For
the controversy is not only concerning the day, but also concerning the very
manner of the fast. For some think that they should fast one day, others two,
yet others more; some, moreover, count their day as consisting of forty hours
day and night.”
-Eusebius,
“Church History”, book 5 chapter 24 verse 12.
It
wasn’t until around the 300’s that a 40-day fast became widespread.
Early
Christians fasted quite often. Some cities fasted every Friday to commemorate
Jesus’ death. Many cities fasted every Saturday. Catholics and Orthodox both
still have the tradition of fasting from Saturday night until they receive the
Eucharist.
How
can we fit “three days and three nights” into Friday evening to Sunday morning?
We can
do so with two things: Onah and Jonah.
Onah
-- We can do this by using inclusive reckoning. The ancient Jews counted
inclusively, and had a concept called the “onah” to explain this. With
inclusive reckoning any part of a day counts as the whole thing.
Jonah
– We can do this since the sign of Jonah was not 72 hours in a great fish, rather
it was his symbolic death resurrection from the great fish. The exact time was
never Jesus’ point; the fact of the literal death and resurrection was.
In the
Old Testament where “three days and three nights” is used, or “three days, night
and day” is used, it is clearer that a literal 72-hours was never understood
and never meant to be understood.
Does
the Holy Week support a Wednesday or Thursday crucifixion?
Most
likely, no. (All options have issues to overcome.)
Wednesday
seems completely out of the question. If the crucifixion were on Wednesday,
then Jesus’ cleansing of the Temple would have been on the Sabbath, and that simply is
not possible. Besides that the words of Cleopas on the Damascus Road preclude
it (we’ll get to that later).
Thursday
is plausible, but there are issues here, too.
If the crucifixion were on Thursday, then the cleansing of the Temple would
have been on the Sabbath, and that also is not possible. Not only that, but it
puts a holy day back-to-back with the weekly Sabbath. Two days without cooking
was not favored. The Jews have been known to postpone holy days so they did not
fall immediately before or after a weekly Sabbath. This postponement may or may
not have happened that year, but a Thursday crucifixion makes it more likely.
Friday
is the best bet, and is supported by the language of the Gospels as well as the
Early Church Fathers. But then there is the issue of whether or not "three days and three nights" is literal.
Was
there a holy day then a weekly Sabbath in the crucifixion week?
Most
likely no. The Greek word 'sabbaton' is translated "Sabbath"
throughout the New Testament but is never used in exclusive reference to an annual high
day. Proper translations of ‘sabbaton’ include “Sabbath”, “Sabbaths” plural,
and “week”.
The Greek word 'paraskeue' is translated "Preparation Day" and is generally recognized as meaning Friday. To place Preparation Day on a different week day we need to change the meaning of 'paraskeue'. We should give a reason why the term needs to be redefined. Mark
goes out of his way to tell us that this Preparation Day was Friday by including the term ‘prosabbaton’, which is translated “the day before the [weekly] Sabbath” (MAR.
15: 42). So we also need to give reason why "prosabbaton" must be redefined.
“Week”
is sometimes a proper translation since ‘sabbaton’ can be idiomatic; a
synecdoche. When ‘sabbaton’ is plural, it can sometimes refer to a week by
referring to both of the Sabbaths that book-end the week. In Matthew 28: 1,
both appearances of ‘sabbaton’ are correctly translated “week”, since they
refer to the end of the week
(Saturday) and the beginning of the
week (Sunday). So there is no annual holy day mentioned in Matthew 28: 1.
In the
entire Greek Bible, ‘sabbaton’ is only used once in reference to an annual high
day, and that is the Day of Atonement (LEV. 23: 32).
John
19: 31 tells us that the Sabbath was an annual holy day. However John does not
tell us that this Sabbath was not a weekly Sabbath. John simply says (and I
paraphrase), “that Sabbath day was great”. The first day of the Feast of
Unleavened Bread can fall on a weekly Sabbath. So we have to give valid reasons why they could not have both been on the same day.
Was
Cleopas referring to the setting of the guard when he said “these things”?
No.
Cleopas said exactly what he meant.
(ACT.
10: 20) and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to be condemned
to death, and crucified Him.
A
Wednesday crucifixion still wouldn’t work out even if Cleopas was referring to
the rolling of the stone. The Jews, as with most people in their day, counted
inclusively. All days involved are included in the count. For example, when
Cornelius says “four days ago” he meant that current day and the three prior
(ACT. 10: 30). In the same way, when Cleopas said “today is the third day” he
meant that current day and the two prior (LUK. 24: 21). In other words,
Cleopas, speaking on Sunday, was referring to Friday. If the crucifixion were
on Wednesday, the stone was rolled early Thursday, and thus Cleopas would have
said “today is the fourth day”.
When
did the women prepare spices?
Inconclusive.
Mark
16: 1 says after the Sabbath, Mary
Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the Less, and Salome the mother of James
and John purchased spices to anoint Jesus with. Other translations point out
that the spices could not be purchased on the Sabbath.
Luke
23: 56 says that before the Sabbath, the
women from Galilee (presumably these same women mentioned above) prepared
spices.
One theory
is a Wednesday crucifixion which puts Mark before Luke chronologically. In this
scenario, the women purchased spices on Friday after the annual holy day as in
Mark 16: 1, then prepared spices all day Friday before the weekly Sabbath as in
Luke 23: 56.
Another
theory is the traditional Friday or even a Thursday crucifixion, which puts
Luke before Mark chronologically. In this scenario, the women prepared spices
along with Nicodemus on Friday as in Luke 23: 56, then they rested on the
weekly Sabbath, then Saturday evening after the Sabbath was complete they
purchased more spices as in Mark 16: 1.
Then
there is always the possibility of an outright error in either one of the
Gospels.
To
expand on the Thursday/Friday scenarios:
The Bible never tells us what quantity the women had. But there is no reason to
conclude the women couldn’t prepare spices before and after the weekly Sabbath.
Since we know Nicodemus arrived in short order with around one hundred pounds
of spices, myrrh, and aloes, we can conclude that these things were readily
available. Martha also had a large quantity of ointment available (JON. 12: 3). There is no reason to believe the women could not have something before the Sabbath. Also, there is no reason to believe shops didn’t open in
Jerusalem after sundown during what is one of the busiest times of the year.
Long
story short, the timing of the spices is no help at all in determining which
crucifixion scenario is correct, since all crucifixion scenarios have equally
plausible explanations. The answer must come from the rest of the evidence.
Wasn’t
Sunday worship itself adopted from paganism?
No. This
claim is a late fabrication. There are some outstanding resources available to
put the lie to this claim and demonstrate that Christians had been
commemorating the resurrection on Sunday morning since the Apostles’ time.
Among these resources is D. M. Canright’s “The Lord’s Day Neither from
Catholics or Pagans”. In chapter 5 of
his book, Mr. Canright corresponds with the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities of the British
Museum in London, England – the world authority at that time. The British
Museum unequivocally confirmed that pagans in ancient Rome did not have any
such concept as weekly Sunday observance.
Thank
you, dear truth-seeking reader, for staying with me through this. I hope this
small FAQ has been of some help to you. I trust it has cleared up a few things.
At the end of the day, if rabbits and eggs bother you, by all means leave them
out. Concentrate on Christ! But don’t bear these Internet fables and foibles
another step. Throw them in the garbage where they belong. I pray our Heavenly
Father guide you ever more into His truth, which hinges and rests on the death
and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Here
are some resources to aid you in finding the truth about Easter:
Material
on ABD:
Material
off-site from ABD:
