The History Of Lent

[Walter]

Pagan believers are pursuing the salvation by works and they try to be more merciful than God is.
God never taught me to do good by celebrating the pagan gods and idols.

Eliyahu

What gave you the idea that anyone suggested celebrating pagan gods and idols?

 

[Matt Black]

Sunday or church school is not part of worship. In the Roman Catholic system, Lent is a part of worship, used to prepare the individual for Easter rite. In Protestantism, worship is what occurs during the worship service.

So children can't worship? Wow!

 

[Steve Allen]

I don't know any Christians that associate Lent with the weeping and sorrow for Tammuz.

but I'm sure that it was introduced with that in mind by the tares way back in the day.

I'm quite certain it was not.

Lent is not actually an outgrowth of preparation for Easter/Pascha per se. Rather, it is from the preparation for Baptism, which was typically done on Holy Saturday morning, for a host of reasons, including so that the newly illumined could then participate in the Paschal celebration that night.

This was initially a three-day total fasting (no food or water) period, which is still observed in the Eastern Orthodox Church by those who are able.

However, this being rather difficult, and as the Church matured, this practice rather rapidly (as evidenced by such early witnesses are mentioned earlier in the thread) into a 40-day period. In the Eastern Orthodox Church, this actually ends on the Friday evening that begins (liturgically) Lazarus Saturday, which was another common option for baptizing.

Lazarus Saturday and Palm Sunday have their own, more lightened (fish allowed) fast, and then Holy Week has its own Fast as well which is not technically Lent, although it is Lenten in character for the first half.

It has nothing to do with "weeping for Tammuz", and never did. And Easter is not -- contrary to the long-since-debunked output of a couple of massively biased (and uninformed) 19th century "historians" -- anything to do with Ishtar. It is only called "Easter" in languages descending from Germanic, on the basis that that month was called (translated) "Easter month" already because of the pagan celebration, but when the pagans quit being pagan and became Christians, they didn't change the name of their month.

Taking this and saying that it somehow means that celebrants of the Resurrection who call it "Easter" are "secretly" or "really" worshiping the goddess after whom that month was named is exactly like saying that people who celebrate New Years' Day are secretly worshiping Janus, or those who celebrate D-Day (in June) are secretly worshiping Juno, or those who celebrate Independence Day in the United States are secretly worshiping Julius Caesar. Et cetera.

In all other languages -- Latin included -- the holiday is called "Pascha" or some derivative thereof, which is from the Hebrew "Pesach", meaning "Passover".

Even in the KJV, the word Easter is only found once (Acts 12:4), and in that place it is used to translate the word "Pascha" from both Latin ("post pascha") and Greek ("meta to pascha"). The KJV translators apparently thought it appropriate to name the holiday of the Passover using the Germanic term, since they were writing in English. Unless you want to deny the KJV?

"But what," you might ask, "of the fact that Easter/Pascha is no longer celebrated in time with the Jewish Passover?"

To this the answer is simple: it originally was, but not consistently so, and this caused some problems. The two roots of the inconsistencies -- Quartodecimianism, and chaos in the Jewish calendar -- were addressed at the Council of Nicea, as part of the general housekeeping they did after handling the Arian controversy, which was the primary reason for their gathering.

Nicea addressed quartodecimianism by settling that the celebration always be held on a Sunday, since that was the day of the Resurrection, and properly called "the Lord's Day". The fathers of the council then handled the calendar chaos by unlinking, from then on, the calculation from reliance on the Jews.

What is quartodecimianism? Since the days of Anicetus and Polycarp (very early!), there was an amicable but ongoing dispute over which day to celebrate Pascha, with the followers of the Apostle John keeping the feast as a celebration of the Crucifixion on the 14th of Nisan, no matter what day it fell on. These were known as quartodecimians (meaning "the 14th-ers"). The rest of the Church, following the practice of the other Apostles (particularly Peter and Paul as received in Rome and Antioch), kept the feast as a celebration of the Resurrection on the Sunday following.

Passover itself being a week-long event that included both events is likely the reason for this confusion. This was not seen, in the days of the two aforementioned luminaries, as reason for breaking fellowship, but neither could persuade the other to change, since each followed faithfully what he had received -- Polycarp from John, and Anicetus from Clement who got it from Peter and Paul, as mentioned already.

However, by the time of the Council at Nicea, this difference had begun to cause problems, so the Council discussed it and settled on the Roman practice. Here are their words:

We also send you the good news of the settlement concerning the holy pasch, namely that in answer to your prayers this question also has been resolved. All the brethren in the East who have hitherto followed the Jewish practice will henceforth observe the custom of the Romans and of yourselves and of all of us who from ancient times have kept Pascha together with you. Rejoicing then in these successes and in the common peace and harmony and in the cutting off of all heresy, welcome our fellow minister, your bishop Alexander, with all the greater honour and love. He has made us happy by his presence, and despite his advanced age has undertaken such great labour in order that you too may enjoy peace.

On the second issue, the following may be said. Because the temple had been destroyed and the Jews no longer had the high priesthood to determine the beginning of their year based on observation of the moon and the barley harvest from Jerusalem as the Law requires, the Jews came up with some lunar tables to estimate when things would have been called for, if the temple were still standing. That lead to quite a bit of confusion and disorder, to the point where there would sometimes even be two passovers in the same year! Many in the Church by the time of the council were complaining about this, since the Church's observation of Pascha (whether on the 14th Nisan or the Sunday following) was a derivative of it. So the Council also addressed this by unlinking the calculation from the Jewish calendars at all. Here is that reasoning:

It was resolved by the united judgment of all present, that this feast ought to be kept by all and in every place on one and the same day. For what can be more becoming or honorable to us than that this feast, from which we date our hopes of immortality [i.e. since the Resurrection of Christ is the guarantee of our own resurrection], should be observed unfailingly by all alike, according to one ascertained order and arrangement? And first of all, it appeared an unworthy thing that in the celebration of this most holy feast we should follow the practice of the Jews, who have impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin, and are, therefore, deservedly afflicted with blindness of soul. For we have it in our power, if we abandon their custom, to prolong the due observance of this ordinance to future ages, by a truer order, which we have preserved from the very day of the passion until the present time. Let us then have nothing in common with the detestable Jewish crowd; for we have received from our Saviour a different way. A course at once legitimate and honorable lies open to our most holy religion. Beloved brethren, let us with one consent adopt this course, and withdraw ourselves from all participation in their baseness... being altogether ignorant of the true adjustment of this question, they sometimes celebrate Passover twice in the same year. Why then should we follow those who are confessedly in grievous error? Surely we shall never consent to keep this feast a second time in the same year... And let your Holinesses' sagacity reflect how grievous and scandalous it is that on the self-same days some should be engaged in fasting, others in festive enjoyment; and again, that after the days of Passover some should be present at banquets and amusements, while others are fulfilling the appointed fasts. It is, then, plainly the will of Divine Providence (as I suppose you all clearly see), that this usage should receive fitting correction, and be reduced to one uniform rule.

So this was not an introduction of a pagan holiday in any sense, but the resolution of a long-standing set of issues into a uniform rule taken not from pagan religions but from among the practices already present in the Church, received from the Apostles, while cutting the unbelieving Jews out of the equation.

 

[HankD]

Steve we don't need all these things, garments, robes, practices and rituals, etc (apart from the ordinances of baptism and communion) all of which have their source coming from an earthly and/or a worldly basis.

Jesus has ripped through the veil and we can freely enter into the Holy Place, directly into the presence of God.

But if it helps you ...

Anyway you should probably read Hebrews Chapter 9.

 

[Steve Allen]

Steve we don't need all these things, garments, robes, practices and rituals, etc (apart from the ordinances of baptism and communion) all of which have their source coming from an earthly and/or a worldly basis.

Jesus has ripped through the veil and we can freely enter into the Holy Place, directly into the presence of God.

But if it helps you ...

Anyway you should probably read Hebrews Chapter 9.

Quite the non sequitur!

 

[HankD]

Quite the non sequitur!

All of our trappings to embellish what doesn't matter

 

[Matt Black]

It was passed down from the apostles as Steve said so I don't think it is irrelevant

 

[HankD]

It was passed down from the apostles as Steve said so I don't think it is irrelevant

Proof please.

 

[Matt Black]

The Church arose in a Jewish milieu which was in turn liturgical in its worship and other practices. Paul makes it clear in several places eg: 2 Thess 2:15 that he is passing on - 'traditio' in the Latin Vulgate translation - that which he has received or already has. All the patristic documents we have describing church meetings and practice mention liturgical worship and indeed that is the case in some form or another for most denominations today after 2000 years. The burden is therefore on you to show that there was a break in continuity of practice early on in Church History...and there simply isn't any evidence of that

 

[HankD]

The Church arose in a Jewish milieu which was in turn liturgical in its worship and other practices. Paul makes it clear in several places eg: 2 Thess 2:15 that he is passing on - 'traditio' in the Latin Vulgate translation - that which he has received or already has. All the patristic documents we have describing church meetings and practice mention liturgical worship and indeed that is the case in some form or another for most denominations today after 2000 years. The burden is therefore on you to show that there was a break in continuity of practice early on in Church History...and there simply isn't any evidence of that

That kind of reasoning may satisfy you Matt but I don't see "Lent" being mentioned in the scripture by any of the apostles as you claim.

However if it is a "local" tradition and the practices are not scripturally offensive then fine with me - still I don't see any apostolic lent traditions in the scripture.

 

[Matt Black]

I didn't claim that Lent was mentioned in the Scriptures. It isn't, but one has to assume assuming sola Scriptura as a dcotrine first for that to be a problem. I don't - and neither did Paul as he made clear - so it isn't a problem for me

 

[Adonia]

I didn't claim that Lent was mentioned in the Scriptures. It isn't, but one has to assume assuming sola Scriptura as a dcotrine first for that to be a problem. I don't - and neither did Paul as he made clear - so it isn't a problem for me

And this is the problem with following the Sola Scriptura doctrine, it ignores the ongoing participation of man regarding things religious and spiritual. If something is keeping within the spirit of the scriptures, what's the problem?

 

[HankD]

OK Lent is a traditional observation not explicitly found in scripture.

 

[Matt Black]

Happy with that definition as far as it goes but would tweak it slightly to "A practice of the Church not explicitly found in Scripture"

 

[Salty]

Happy with that definition as far as it goes but would tweak it slightly to "A practice of the Church not explicitly found in Scripture"

True - but neither does Scripture prohibit it.
IMHO - the real test - is why do people celebrate -
if it is because everyone else is doing it - that is not a sufficient reason.
Now, if you find, that you have a closer communion with the Lord by fast AND prayer - different story

 

[Matt Black]

Well, that's the idea, yes

 

[HankD]

Happy with that definition as far as it goes but would tweak it slightly to "A practice of the Church not explicitly found in Scripture"

Right, all other things considered it would be part of Christian Liberty.

 

[Matt Black]

Absolutely

 

[Eliyahu]

What gave you the idea that anyone suggested celebrating pagan gods and idols?

It was never taught by the Bible, but came from the human tradition or from the paganism as I said about Ezekiel 8:14

Ezekiel 8

13 He said also unto me, Turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations that they do.

14 Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the Lord's house which was toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz.

15 Then said he unto me, Hast thou seen this, O son of man? turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations than these.

16 And he brought me into the inner court of the Lord's house, and, behold, at the door of the temple of the Lord, between the porch and the altar, were about five and twenty men, with their backs toward the temple of the Lord, and their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east.

Bring any verse to prove that Lent is based on the Bible teachings.

Eliyahu

 

[Eliyahu]

Happy with that definition as far as it goes but would tweak it slightly to "A practice of the Church not explicitly found in Scripture"

The Church arose in a Jewish milieu which was in turn liturgical in its worship and other practices. Paul makes it clear in several places eg: 2 Thess 2:15 that he is passing on - 'traditio' in the Latin Vulgate translation - that which he has received or already has. All the patristic documents we have describing church meetings and practice mention liturgical worship and indeed that is the case in some form or another for most denominations today after 2000 years. The burden is therefore on you to show that there was a break in continuity of practice early on in Church History...and there simply isn't any evidence of that

Matthew 15:
8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Eliyahu