I find it quite ironic.

Nobody here seems to get upset when a post says that the Mormon sacred-not-secret "signs and tokens" in the endowment ritual are derived from the Masonic initiation ceremony, or that the Book of Mormon appears to be copied from other sources, or that the Book of Abraham's illustrations are entirely pagan. The Mormons get upset, but nobody here seems to object.

But to point out that the Easter celebration has pagan origins seems to offend some people here, who refuse to examine the facts. How "Mormon"! I would think that what is sauce for the goose would also be sauce for the gander.

The celebration at Easter was not associated with the crucifixion and resurrection by Christians until the middle of the second century.

If anyone insists that Easter was ORIGINALLY a commemoration of the crucifixion and resurrection, adapted ONLY from the Jewish passover feast, then I fervently urge a simple Google search on "easter origins" "easter pagan holiday" "easter history".

And please remember that how YOU celebrate the holiday, and the meaning that YOU attach to it is entirely irrelevant to how the holiday originated or how you BELIEVE it originated, any more than what Mormons believe about the source of the signs and tokens or their sacred books is relevant to the actual facts.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/2014 10:39AM by RPackham.

I didn't read the closed thread, but I'm surprised to hear you say people here were offended by others intimating that Easter has its roots in earlier pagan celebrations. Link?

It was titled: Easter, the pagan fertility festival (**warning: may offend Christians!)

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1242697,1243719

Well said.

Not offended,I just disagree with SOME of your conclusions.I dont think anyone denies that Christians incorporated pagan aspects into their holiday.

How about Christians incorporated Christian aspects into a pagan holiday?

The crucifixion and belief that Jesus rose ,whether he did or not, are historical events and took place on Passover.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/2014 08:45PM by bona dea.

But there is no evidence that show he rose from the dead or that he was even crucified. One book written compiled from anonymous authors with no contemporary sources doesnt cut it.

There are several sources, not just one and the crucifixion is an accepted fact, but believe whatever you like. The resurrection is a matter of faith and cant be proved historically,but my point is that early Christians believed it and celebrated it

I believe you have misspelled "hysterical" because the word historical requires some back-up.

Jesus, whether a eponymous man actually lived or not, after his death, whether it actually happened or not, became the center of a branch of Judaism. Based on conversion efforts, a large and growing percentage of Jesus adherents were gentiles. Eventually, Judaism rejected its Christian wing and almost all of the further growth of Christianity occurred among gentiles, pagans. These gentiles had festivals of their own, that had nothing to do with Passover. Since Jesus--or the original center of the myth--was Jewish, Easter was related to Passover. However, quickly, the Jesus myth was incorporated into pagan festivals, because pagans didn't want to give up their festivals just because they converted to a Jesus-sect that originated as a Jewish sect. I know Buddhists who give gifts at Christmas. I have friends who attend Superbowl parties without knowing who's playing. It's not surprising. People love a party and tradition. Tradition keeps people Mormon, and parading around as pioneers, long after rationality would suggest it's time to quit.

Yep, pretty much this.

There's always crossover with holidays, based on culture, celebrants, and history.

All faiths have something that came before them. Some are written down, others aren't.

It really doesn't matter if it's original or not - it just matters whether it's important to the celebrant. *shrug*

/Pagan
//also celebrates Easter
///because hooray family... and chocolate

I find it freakin' hilarious. Jesus was mounted up on a big old phallic symbol, squirted out his 'blood' and rose again on the thing day. Good old fashioned pagan magic wouldn't you say?

}:-)>

What, can't you count? I'll accept "on the third day", but he was not in the tomb for 3 days, not even close; barely 36 hours or much less, since he could have left anytime after dark on Saturday night.

So if Jesus died for the sins of the world, paying the "ultimate sacrifice", it doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice to me, relatively speaking. He wasnt innocent; he was guilty of insurrection. He had to have known that by thumbing his nose at the Roman government, they wouldn't go for it. And while crucifixion is a nasty way to die, there are a lot worse ways that take longer. How about cancer? Babies who are born with it, living their entire short lives in pain only to die? Sometimes people were up on a cross way more than 2-3 hours. Besides, he didn't stay dead. So what did he give up? He didnt really die since it was a temporary thing, right?

What about all the innocent people who have been put to death or very slowly tortured to death over days, weeks, months... what have their deaths accomplished? What, nothing? Sorry, not buying it.

Besides, here's the kicker: there is no such thing as substitutiary guilt. Can't be done. EXCEPT if Jesus was god, who created humans to continually fuck up no matter how hard they kept trying not to, it's only fair he take the blame. I'm okay with that. Except the punishment (crucifixion) didn't fit the sheer enormity of the crime, not by a long shot.

Actually, there is some disagreement of when he was crucified (on what day of the week) and when he rose. Changing the year changes the day of the week, for example.

Not the scholar here, but if I were going to commemorate the hanging on the cross of someone who claimed to be the literal son of God who his dad killed for us, after he had a thorny crown jammed into his head, had a sword stuck through his ribs, and watched his beloved friends watch him die, I would probably be looking for representational objects with more weight to them than a pink eyed bunny who dyes easter eggs and delivers them with plastic grass in pretty colored baskets. I am absolutely sure that peeps would not come to mind either. Malted milk eggs? Perhaps.

Also, associating those same representations with Passover is beyond a stretch as well.

The catholics may have gotten it right with their "hot cross buns" although the image that conjures for me has more to do with something else.

I have no reference or evidence at all, but I vote Pagan because its the only thing that makes sense.

Thank you Richard. I appreciated both your posts immensely.

Then they might be passible, especially with melted dark chocolate on a graham cracker!

Passover has no connection at all with the alleged temporary death of Jesus, except coincidental timing. Nothing contextual. Yeah yeah yeah, Jesus the sacrificial lamb, except he was an adult, lambs were not full grown sheep, the lambs stayed dead, and JC wasn't innocent of the charges. Oops, try again.

I think it would be quite appropriate to commemorate that horrible story of passover with killing lambies and painting ther blood over door frames. Try to ignore the stink as you eat matzo, there's the ticket.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/2014 02:31PM by serena.

RPackham Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I find it quite ironic.
>
> But to point out that the Easter celebration has
> pagan origins seems to offend some people here,
> who refuse to examine the facts. How "Mormon"! I
> would think that what is sauce for the goose would
> also be sauce for the gander.
>


I type the following having not read the original thread, so forgive me if I repeat something.


Problems of this sort arise often because of confusion of what we mean by "pagan" and a too easy wont to conflate. Not all pagans and their isms are the same or even connected.

No one says (I hope) that Christianity arose whole cloth out of the Hellenistic world completely free of syncretism. That's absurd. Of course christianity was influenced by Mediterranean paganism, by which we mean generally greco-roman, and hebraism.

The pre-christian "pagans" of N. Europe, however, are not cut from that cloth. They had their own systems and their own ideas about Spring. Their "paganism" (in context we should say barbarism) is indigenous to their ethnicity, climate and the subsequent culture that arose from this.

When Christianity spread northward among the barbarians there was a certain kind of layering effect around universal (in the North) dates of the year, like Spring and Winter. As christianity grew in popularity and power in places like England and Ireland the barbarian traditions of the place did not completely disappear. For example, the English maypole festivities pre-date Christianity and are in no way connected to Jesus's cross, an erroneous connection often made today. The barbarian maypole and the christian easter celebrations coincide around Spring, but are not connected in any other way and have their origins in completely different ethnicities, geographies, climates and cultures. The same can be said about the German christmas tree, in no way connected to Jesus's cross.

Too often today people mistake N. European "paganism" (in context, barbarism) for the greco-roman paganism as if they are the same thing or share the same origin.

A little history lesson might help. So harken back to the mid 300's if you will (around that time), Roman Emperor Constantine had his hands full with 1) Christians fighting with Christians over various theological issues, including what scripture should be studied; and 2) Christians fighting with Pagans.

Constantine, ever the peace maker, pretty much forced the Christians to get together (council of Nicaea anyone? - google it) to canonize the Christian bible once and for all. He also encouraged Christians and Pagans to, in essence, work to combine holidays.

There's a darn good reason why all of our major western holidays have all of these seemingly pagan themes to them (some despite the best efforts of the bible to thwart them - see Jeremiah 10:1-10). Sorry Christians, there's really nothing original about your holy celebrations, they are for the most part "barrowed" in a sense. But hey, don't let that bother you, your letting (years of) interpreted bronze aged text dictate your modern life, worrying about the originality of your holidays is the least of your issues. ;-)

TIC

isthisnameok? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A little history lesson might help. So harken
> back to the mid 300's if you will (around that
> time), Roman Emperor Constantine had his hands
> full with 1) Christians fighting with Christians
> over various theological issues, including what
> scripture should be studied; and 2) Christians
> fighting with Pagans.
>
> Constantine, ever the peace maker, pretty much
> forced the Christians to get together (council of
> Nicaea anyone? - google it) to canonize the
> Christian bible once and for all. He also
> encouraged Christians and Pagans to, in essence,
> work to combine holidays.
>
> There's a darn good reason why all of our major
> western holidays have all of these seemingly pagan
> themes to them (some despite the best efforts of
> the bible to thwart them - see Jeremiah 10:1-10).
> Sorry Christians, there's really nothing original
> about your holy celebrations, they are for the
> most part "barrowed" in a sense. But hey, don't
> let that bother you, your letting (years of)
> interpreted bronze aged text dictate your modern
> life, worrying about the originality of your
> holidays is the least of your issues. ;-)
>
> TIC


Constantine pulled off an adept switcheroo.

Took Roman pantheism and changed the gods into saints and called it Roman Catholicism.

Charming trick engineered by his hot little wife, btw.

I agree that we should be upset about the pagan additions to Easter. On the other hand the timing with Passover is a positive.

I did not buy our children "Easter baskets", or even candy for it. The only thing I encouraged was going to church and celebrating the death, burial and resurrection. Candy? Like Valentine's day it was a couple of weeks later because it depended on candy being lower priced than it was any other time in the year! 75-90% off. It was a family joke that the Easter Bunny came a couple of weeks late.

We also dealt with the commercialism of Christmas by giving very little on Christmas, making almost no note of Santa and being sure the kids got some money to take advantage of the after-Christmas sales. Toys and dolls and stuffed animals and clothing were brought at up to 75% off. No-one objected and they had a great time getting what they wanted that we could not have afforded days before. Anyway, back to Easter. Even as a kid I never accepted the Easter Bunny nor desired partaking of bunny chocolates.

As the paganism of Easter can be ignored - one should also ignore the reality that Christmas is pagan-related as well. What really bugs me is that the local TSCC makes a big thing out of Santa at Christmas and for Easter? Only things like candy and colored eggs, and Easter egg hunts encouraging greed, etc. UGH!

For me, Easter is celebrating the empty tomb, victory over death, the empty cross.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/2014 04:51PM by rhgc.

I just posted about this on another thread. I agree, Richard.

If it is true, which of course it isn't, wouldn't god be sent to prison for killing his son?

No. God did not kill Jesus. Allowing it to happen for the purpose of freeing man was not a crime. As a father I can understand the pain he (the father) went through. When I was young I could not understand it. Only by being a parent and seeing and feeling as one, was I able to comprehend that the greater enormity of what took place was not the pain of Christ, but that of God.

With all due respect that is garbage. God is omnipotent and could have chosen any number of methods to save his children, up to and including not making them evil in the first place. God made a plan that required him to "allow" his son to be brutally murdered and tortured.

Honestly, oh brother. The pain of God? Really, as a father, you recognize the pain of God. Um. God's the father of every human being on this earth. He never saw any of his children die, or be killed before? Or is Jesus his only "real" son. That concept is part of the sadomasochism that characterizes Mormonism. Jesus is our brother, the only son dad really claims and really loves. Oh, we'd really like to grow up and be like him someday. . .

This is not the teaching of Jesus. It's maudlin emotionalism. .

Clearly, I never bought into the idea that we are all spirit chilren of a god who has to have a large number of wives so he can create billions of children and then knows everything they do, etc.

Christianity is a blood cult of human sacrifice, even if it was just the one guy. His body and blood is consumed weekly by the cultists, either said to be literal or symbolic. It's primitive and barbaric to it's core. The atonement trope is totally illogical in both it's needfulness and it's mechanism. Time to stop believing ancient nonsense or thinking that horrid book, the bible, is anything but a manual for the total regression of humanity back into bronze age ignorance. Wake up.

Transubstantiation is a Catholic doctrine not accepted by most protestants.

Only Catholic?
Not Orthodox? Lutherns? Anglicans (High)?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/2014 09:26PM by angela.