Said nothing my eye. It was an exhaustively thorough refutation.
In the mid-second century there was the Quartodeciman controversy...where the Christians of Asia Minor were celebrating Easter on Passover, no matter what day of the week it fell on. The rest of the world celebrated it on Sunday. Both practices, apparently, were apostolic in origin.
Nevertheless, Pope Victor threatened to excommunicate the Quartodecimans as at variance with the rest of the world, but Irenaeus wrote him and told him not to be hasty and to tolerate the difference in practice.
Eventually Quartodecimanism disappeared. But it is clear that at least some Christians for the first two centuries were celebrating Easter *on the date of Passover*, and they were in communion with the rest of the Christian world who celebrated it on a Sunday.
It was a pagan day celebrated by Romans and was dragged into the church in the 4th century for whatever reason.
Nonsense. First of all, Easter couldn't have replaced "a pagan day celebrated by Romans" because it fell on a different day on the Roman calendar every year (remember...it is always on Sunday).
Also, we have an ancient Roman calendar: the Philocalian or the Chronography of 354. If you are going to make a blanket assertion that Easter replaced a "pagan day celebrated by Romans", how about telling us which pagan celebration that might be?
Thanks Claud.
Chuckles is just repeating the nonsense that we’ve all heard and is trotted out in the media each time Pascha comes along.
Perhaps this one.
* * * * * * *
Acts
Chapter 12
“1 Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church. 2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. 3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) 4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.”