Easter Nonsense
It’s that time of year again, when Christians celebrate god sacrificing himself to himself to save mankind from himself. Let’s look at some of the insanity behind it all.
The timing of Easter tracks with (or used to, at least) Passover, another celebration of the Abrahamic god’s apparent bloodlust. The Exodus story, which was tied to the Passover celebration, is a myth with no basis in historical reality. What’s even more bizarre to any person with a conscience and an iota of critical thinking, is the Jewish commemoration of an event in which a cruel and indiscriminate god murders innocent Egyptian children.
To compound all the nonsense, the Passover observation wasn’t even original to the slavery myth, but was an ancient festival appropriated by Judahite propagandists:
This celebration is found only in the Priestly source. Just as P grounded the Sabbath in the creation story, so it grounds the Passover in the story of the exodus. The Passover was probably originally a rite of spring, practiced by shepherds. In early Israel it was a family festival. . . . The celebration was changed by the reform of King Josiah in 621 B.C.E. into a pilgrimage festival, to be celebrated at the central sanctuary (Jerusalem) and was combined with the Festival of Unleavened Bread.
~ John. J. Collins, A Short Introduction to the Hebrew Bible
Easter, then, builds off the Passover feast, which, as some Christians overlook, was the Last Supper. John 13, however, puts the Last Supper a day earlier, in order to cast Jesus in the starring role as the sacrificial lamb of Passover.
Emperor Constantine, at the Council of Nicaea in 325 (where the Trinity Doctrine was proclaimed orthodox in addition to the other nonsense which follows), issued a letter with these extremely intolerant comments regarding the dating of Easter:
It was declared to be particularly unworthy for this, the holiest of all festivals, to follow the custom [the calculation] of the Jews, who had soiled their hands with the most fearful of crimes, and whose minds were blinded. In rejecting their custom, we may transmit to our descendants the legitimate mode of celebrating Easter, which we have observed from the time of the Saviour’s Passion to the present day [according to the day of the week]. We ought not, therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews, for the Saviour has shown us another way; our worship follows a more legitimate and more convenient course (the order of the days of the week); and consequently, in unanimously adopting this mode, we desire, dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews, for it is truly shameful for us to hear them boast that without their direction we could not keep this feast. How can they be in the right, they who, after the death of the Saviour, have no longer been led by reason but by wild violence, as their delusion may urge them? They do not possess the truth in this Easter question; for, in their blindness and repugnance to all improvements, they frequently celebrate two passovers in the same year. We could not imitate those who are openly in error. How, then, could we follow these Jews, who are most certainly blinded by error? for to celebrate the passover twice in one year is totally inadmissible. But even if this were not so, it would still be your duty not to tarnish your soul by communications with such wicked people [the Jews].
This from the guy Christian propagandists claim made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire when he signed the Edict of Milan in 313, ironically an edict of religious toleration, which put a stop to the Diocletian persecution of Christians. And so, Passover and Easter were forever decoupled; and human memory being short-term and highly selective, many Christians fail to recognize the original connection.
Moving on, the resurrection stories in the four Gospels don’t even gel in their respective accounts. Go figure, the Bible is inconsistent; who would have thought? The accounts differ in who went to the tomb, who they met, and what happened after.
Mark originally ends at 16:8, with the women (Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome) fleeing in terror:
[T]hey saw a young man, dressed in a white robe, sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed. But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you.” So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.
One wonders, if the women said nothing, how did the tale spread? Scholars believe the remainder of the verses in Mark 16 were added by a later editor to correct this blatant oversight.
In Matthew, the women are Mary Magdalene and the other Mary — what the hell happened to Salome? — and this time, it’s an angel, not a young man, who greets them. The women go and tell the disciples, then Jesus appears, and they go back to Galilee where Jesus appears again
In Luke, the women aren’t even named, and it’s not one man they meet, it’s two. The women go and tell the disciples, who don’t believe the story, so Peter goes to the tomb to see for himself, but then just goes home and says nothing.
In John, Mary Magdalene goes alone, sees the stone is moved and runs to get Peter and John (the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved). They didn’t understand what they saw, so they just went home. Then, Mary Magdalene is greeted by two angels . . . and Jesus.
To top off all the Gospel inconsistencies, is the sheer impossibility of resurrection, or as Celsus put it in the second century, as captured by Origen in Against Celsus (II. LV):
But the question is, whether any one who was really dead ever rose with a veritable body. … who beheld this? A half-frantic woman, as you state, and some other one, perhaps, of those who were engaged in the same system of delusion, who had either dreamed so, owing to a peculiar state of mind, or under the influence of a wandering imagination had formed to himself an appearance according to his own wishes, which has been the case with numberless individuals; or, which is most probable, one who desired to impress others with this portent, and by such a falsehood to furnish an occasion to impostors like himself.
Celsus and Lucian lived at the same time, and both expressed virtually identical sentiments:
Draw your own conclusions as to the magnitude of the last two thousand years of Western history being shaped by the ‘delusion of a half-frantic woman’ worshiping a ‘crucified sophist.’ And then fast-forward to today: chocolate bunnies and coloured eggs. What the hell, enjoy the long weekend!
