Talk:Easter/Archive 2

message: Csernicka added Easter on the list of May holidays.  I reverted that because Christianity has made a point to celebrate it on 25 April at the latest.  C. reverted this again with the argument that the Orthodox sometimes celebrate it in May.  That would be May in the Gregorian calendar.  But in that case the Orthodox use the Julian calendar and still 25 April is the latest date.  So I maintain that Easter is not a May holiday.  You can not mix calendar systems.  I still want this classification removed.  Tom Peters 11:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We mix calendar systems routinely. Most Orthodox Churches (although not most Orthodox Christians) now use the New Calendar ("Revised Julian") for the fixed holidays, but retain the old reckoning for computing the date of Pascha. This is unsatisfactory in many ways, but it's what we're currently stuck with. Besides, any listing of the dates for Pascha will give it on the civil calendar, including the one in the article. Wouldn't it be more than a little strange to give a May date, and then claim that the day does not actually fall in May? TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The GOARCH (Greek Orthodox Archdiocese) of the USA certainly CAN celebrate Pascha in May.  This is, as has been noted, due to the use of the "Revised Julian Calendar".  While the Old Calendrists would maintain that May is never used, on the Revised Julian Calendar, it is quite obvious that the date of Pascha can fall on may.  Do not look only to Old Calendar rigorists for the norms of Orthodox Christianity.  The Eastern Orthodox Church accepts both Old Calendar and New Calendar Orthodox.Dogface 20:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Easter in May ?? 

message: Some editors have found a variety of verifiable sources that in some places people are now calling "Easter" "Spring Holiday."  i created a section of this article called "Spring Holday" and added the contents on who and how people have come to call Easter "Spring Break."  AYArktos reverted.  Do others agree this material is ireelevant to Easter? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Spring Break" has been used in the USA for decades, with no reference at all to Easter.  It just refers to a short break in the school season.  It's a non-issue in the USA. Dogface 19:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Rubenstein, Dogface said that "Spring Break" is used in the USA with no references to Easter. He is correct. For that article, see Spring break. As for Spring holiday, that is a direct euphemism to the holidays of Easter Sunday, Easter Monday, and/or Good Friday. I think Dogface merely misunderstood the issue. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 03:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Contrary to whatever is being dishonestly claimed, "Spring Break" has NEVER been a euphemism for Easter, except, perhaps among a microscopically tiny group of secularist extremists.  Likewise, "spring holiday" has never been a euphemism for Easter except among a similarly vanishingly tiny group.  Is Wikipedia to be a special soap box for such out-of-mainstream practices?Dogface 20:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spring Holiday 

message: Hi.  I haven't had time to read the whole article yet, and I see of course there's been a lot of discussion here.  My first instinct is to ask -- at the first sentence--  Who calls Easter "Passover" in English?  As a native (US) English speaker, I have never heard any other US, UK, Aussie, or Canadian English speaker use the words "Passover" and "Easter" interchangeably, nor substituted "Passover" for "Easter".
Who ever wrote this article is purposely misleading the public.  Pesach and Easter ARE NOT the same!!!!!!! Nor has Easter ever been called Pesach (or Passover in English--or any other language for that matter!  The author needs to correct this gross error!!!  Pesach/Passover is Scripturally based, while Easter IS NOT!!  If the author does not correct this serious error then those in Wikipedia need to!!!!!!
Oops, forgot to sign: J Lorraine 00:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most Christians call it by something like "Pascha". This is Greek for "Passover". TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, like J Lorraine, I'm also interested to hear about Easter being called "Pascha"; this is the first time I've heard of it. I hail from Australia, but have never heard about Easter being referred to as "Passover" or "Pascha" here in Roman Catholic/Protestant usage. This makes me wonder, could this be something unique to the Eastern Orthodox Church? Or have other people also heard about "Pascha" used in this way? I'm interested in your thoughts. Brisvegas 03:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's common usage among English-speaking Eastern Orthodox, true, but it's also the usual name in most languages other than English. It's become necessary to point this out right from the start due to the propagation of certain theories on its origin based on the word "Easter". This establishes that "Easter" as a name really has nothing to do with the origin of the holiday. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That's no rush. All the hymnography and theology connected with the day in the traditional Christian churches (Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church) associate it with Passover. This is especially true among the EO where Greek is still a primary liturgical language: "Pascha" cannot be understood in any other way. Even if this has not entered the popular consciousness in some -- or even many -- places, it's known to the educated. Although it can hardly be avoided when the hymnography is so explicit. I can't speak from knowledge about Latin American usage except that Christmas may well be regarded as a "Winter Pascua" much as the EO view the Advent fast as a kind of "Winter Lent". TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is, however, incorect. Among other things, this reference neglects to mention that it's a Greek word in origin, not Latin. (Added: By which I mean, that it came from Hebrew into Greek and thence into Latin, not directly from Hebrew into Latin.) In Christian theology, Easter is exactly Passover. I need to find the time to write that section we discussed below. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Easter is called Passover? 

message: "In the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia, a tradition of whipping is carried out on Easter Monday"
I am not aware of any whipping here (Hungary), only sprinkling. Frigo 16:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I'm not aware of whipping in the Slavic countries either; only sprinkling as well. Or sometimes a thorough dousing. My grandmother told me of a woman who used to sit by her second-floor window with a bucket on Bright Tuesday. No man was safe on the sidewalk beneath her. (This was Bayonne, New Jersey in the Carpatho-Russian émigré community.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whipping 

message: Just because people use one word to refer to two different things does not mean those two things are the same.  Thus, one should not translate the word the same way in both contexts.  Each context merits a different translation. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except, of course, where the context is not different. Read the article. For most Christians, "Easter" is the Christian Passover. The word is understood in Greek (and by the Greeks) in exactly that sense. It is not insignificant that the same word signifies both Christian and Jewish feasts; they are inextricably tied in the Christian view. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Note the Greek wiki article doesn't even put the Jewish and Christian feasts in separate articles. (Both halves of the article are badly underdeveloped.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes. Yes we do. That's what I've been saying. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Easter is considered to be the "Holy Passover" within Orthodox Christianity.  It is the "fulfilled" Passover, just as Christ is the fulfillment of the lamb of the Jewish Temple.  Thus, those Christian traditions that use "Πάσχα" will think of it as their (our) Passover. Dogface 11:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: To elaborate, the West, or at least Protestantism in the West, has long had a fixation with explicitly distancing itself from every possible connection to Judaism.  There is a constant emphasis upon how "new" and "different" Christianity must be from all that has come before.  In the East, the emphasis has been completely different.  The ecclesiological model has been one of stressing continuity from First-Century Judaism.Dogface 11:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that this would be a valuable addition to the article, and I can't imagine how it might have escaped my attention that it was lacking until now. Thank you for pointing it out. (I honestly thought it was in there, so I apologize if I treated you as if you were being obtuse.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  translations - sometimes cannot be literal 

message: I understand this isn't the best place to ask, but I'm desperate. Well, I've been needing to figure this out for a long time for an essay that's due next week, and I haev searched most of the internet. I was born on Easter Sunday, March 26th, 1989, and was wondering how I might go about figuring out when the next time Easter will fall on March 26th will be. Any Help would be appreciated. Myzou 00:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Computus.  You probably best use the tabular method and find it for each year until you hit the date.  Tom Peters 09:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the Side-by-side Easter reference external link given in the article, the next year that Easter will fall on March 26 is 2062, and occurs again in 2073 and 2084. Look under New style Catholic. — Joe Kress 05:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help figuring out when it is next on a date? 

message: The below section doesn't really make sense or read like an article. Also there is no citation that Baptists don't believe Jesus drank wine; I certainly never heard such a believe declared in 20+ years of attending a Southern Baptist church.
:Baptists in particular, maintain that the Last Supper was shown in the Gospels to portray Jesus urging the gathered apostles to share bread and the "fruit of the vine" (expressed in this fashion because Baptists view that Jesus did not drink intoxicating wine at Passover, this is based on where proverbs states 'look not upon the wine when it moveth itself aright in the cup'... which would mean there are two states of wine, the latter not being the same as the first... talk to anyone who creates these beverages and they can explain there is a change.). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bcostley (talk • contribs) 04:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baptists 

message: "In the United Kingdom, the Easter Act of 1928 set out legislation to allow the date of Easter to be fixed as the first Sunday after the second Saturday in April. However, the legislation was never implemented."
ummm? Really? Why isn't this expressed as 'the second Sunday in April'? Also, a source would be good.
:The rules in the US for setting Election Day are similar: the first Tuesday after the first Monday in Novermber. This is so phrased to ensure that elections always happen after the 1st of the month. In this case, I imagine the point is to make sure Easter occurs more or less in the middle of April. As for sources, a Google search on "Easter Act of 1928" yields far too many results to be overly worried about it. The formal name of the law is 18 & 19 Geo. 5, chapter 35. To be implemented it requires an Order-in-Council, which has never been issued. TCC (talk) (contribs) 11:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If April begins on a Sunday, then the first Sunday after the second Saturday in April would be the third Sunday in April.Dogface 17:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Easter Act of 1928 

message: This page has a hideous mish-mash of citations and external links.  I am severely tempted to clean them all up as proper end-note citations. Does anyone object to this?  Is anyone infatuated with links over proper citations?Dogface 15:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning up Citations and Links 

message: Looks like it's time to temporarily protect another holiday page, until the holiday passes.  Anyone else think this?Dogface 19:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to protect? 

message: "Canada and the United States and parts of UK". I would say that the UK is more secular than the US - which parts of the UK don't have a secular easter? Northern Ireland and some bits of Scotland? I'm going to change this to the UK unless anyone disagrees. Secretlondon 05:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggestion agreed with wholeheartedly here. Tomjol 23:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parts of the UK? 

message: Hey there, can't edit the page myself.
Can someone please change the Netherlands section to include Northern Germany where Easter fires are also quite common.
thanks :)
Marco (Northern Germany)
Bonteburg 20:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Netherlands section 

message: Under "Etymology", the meaning of the word "Passover" in John 28:8 is mentioned. If this is referring to ########## of John, there is no John 28:8; ########## of John is only 21 chapters long. I can't edit this; perhaps someone can. However, I haven't found an alternative verse to cite. John 19:8 and 20:8 don't have the word "Passover" in the New International Version. There is a Matthew 28:8, but no reference to the word "Passover" there either (using the same version). Perhaps someone can find the right Gospel of John reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John ISEM (talk • contribs) 14:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I provide more appropriate citations. — Joe Kress 20:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not in ########## of John 

message: I had to remove the "double curvy bracket" christianity}} tag because it messed up the formatting of the page - made everything centered and other things.  I do not know how to edit such a thing. Ellimist 00:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put the template back because I really don't see anything wrong with it.  Could you be specific? Carlo 02:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It had been vandalized a short time ago. No doubt Ellimist was seeing either the vandalized version or a cached copy of it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 17:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it is fine now.  I had looked back in the history, but the same error kept popping up.  Oh well.  Whatever it was is fixed now. Thanks. Ellimist 19:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format 

message: Since Pascha redirects here, I am adding it to the beginning of the article.  Majoreditor 03:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pascha 

message: The Easter Triduum article declares that Lent ends on Holy Thursday, but the Lent article states that it ends either at the dusk of Holy Saturday (Easter Vigil) or the morning of Easter Sunday. These seem to conflict, so which one is right??74.62.177.140 20:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lent ends on Holy Saturday in the Western churches. It may end earlier in Eastern Orthodox churches; I'm not sure. (I know it starts earlier there). —Angr 11:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The answer varies in different churches. The Roman Catholic Church takes one approach, but theirs is not necessarily the "final answer". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And by the way, "Lent" refers to springtime, as does "Easter". A blending of different religious traditions. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  When does Lent end? 

message: Regarding the name : the article mentions bulgarian easter translation but it is wrong. In Bulgarian easter is Velikden (or "Великден"), which is selebrated on Sunday and the night before is called Bydni Vecher("Бъдни Вечер")which is the expectation of Easter. Also, in those countries the official days off are Friday through Monday, not as in catholic world, where it starts with good friday and end on sunday. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.80.41.47 (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Easter in Bulgarian 

message: I don't think that calling certain groups "cults" is an NPOV sort of thing. 141.152.79.93 15:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I have removed it. --BigDT 00:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cults? 

message: Easter Fires (Påskbrasor) is tradition in Scandinavia (Sweden specifically) and this is not reflected in the text.
::Not just Scandinavia, but much of Northen Europe, including Germany and Britain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.230.73.2 (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it correct that Scandinavia calls theirs Bale or Balder Fires? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.122.36.252 (talk) 09:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Easter Fires 

message: Is there any reason for the pre-emptive protection of this article?  There's a definite reason to leave it not protected - we want someone googling Easter to be able to edit it and potentially become a user.  If every high profile page is s-protected preemptively, then potential new users get the idea that they can't "edit this page right now". --BigDT 00:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the protection. As a general rule, pages linked from the main page should not be protected unless the vandalism gets so bad we can't keep on top of it (i.e. reverting vandalism actually results in edit conflicts with the vandals). —Angr 11:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  s-protection 

message: As I'm sure that someone will revert my recent edit without thinking..... the old statement either alleges that Jesus died on Thursday or was resurrected on Monday.  The third day after Friday is Monday: Friday (0), Saturday (+1), Sunday (+2), Monday (+3).  I spelled it out agonizingly in the comment, which probably should be editted down, but I'm hoping someone won't revert it if they read it.  The phrase: "on the third day he rose again" includes Friday, the day he was crucified, as the first day.  So he was ressurected on the second day after, not the third day.  KV(Talk) 01:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Two things here. Firstly the 'day' refers to daytime as opposed to a measure of 24 hours. Secondly, the first X after an event (where X is a unit of time) is not, in English, called the zeroth X; it is called the first X. This is a similar same concept to the first century not being the zeroth century. Put the two together and in this instance the first day is the first daytime after the event. Since the event took place in daylight it happens to be the same day as the one immediately before the event, namely Friday. Thus the first day is Friday, the second is Saturday and the third Sunday. Quod erat demonstrandum. Stormerne (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your conclusion, Stormerne, but I'm not sure about your reasoning.  The prediction was that Jesus would rise again "on the third day", not "on the third day after the crucifixion".  The third day after would indeed have been Monday.  But that's not what the issue is.  The first day was the day of the event, Friday; the second day was Saturday; and the third day was Sunday.  People read "third day" and assume that about 3 x 24 = 72 hours must have elapsed between crucifixion and resurrection, placing the latter event on the afternoon of Monday.  But it happened on Sunday morning, only about 40 hours later.  --  JackofOz (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Day 

message: I know much of the easter egg tradition is included in the easter bunny article however, what about adding the American?(not sure if it originated elsewhere.) tradition of the egg roll in the "Non-religious Easter traditions" section.
the Wikipedia entry is 
By egg roll I mean the tradition of racing others while propelling an egg with your nose or a spoon not the Chinese appetizer.
Sdumont 13:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Egg roll 

message: :PS -- lots of detail currently in this article should be spun off elsewhere and things rearranged. A better layout would be somthing like this:
*pre-TOC intro
#Etymology, kept very very brief
#Religious observance of Easter (including a brief bit about its position in the church year)
#Easter as a secular holiday
#The date of Easter (with only simple stuff; more detailed stuff should be spun off elsewhere)
#History and contested points (including a summary of easter & the early church; anti-easter christians; etc.)
:And the long list of other-language names can go altogether. Doops |  talk 19:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm getting tired of this. Easter is a Christian festival. We all know that it derives from Passover, that's fine - it's still first and foremost a Christian festival. It seems that it has a complicated etymology where the English word for it invites confusion with pagan stuff - that's fine too - it's still first and foremost a Christian festival. Turns out that people like to do stuff with rabbits, chocolate and eggs on this day - fine - it's still first and foremost a Christian festival. Get the big stuff right and the minor details will sort themselves out. Christian Easter is the main thing - add all other topics on the end of that. Dave 23:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this post in its entirety. "Easter" as most commonly used, refers to the Christian celebration of the Resurrection of Christ.66.57.229.78 16:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  elements of a clean-up 

message: Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  Should the translations be moved to Easter wiktionary article and removed from this article? --Bkkbrad 05:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove translations 

message: The mention of Bel and Astarte seems to be a mistake for Bel and Ishtar (or Sarpanit)as Bel (Marduk) mythology relates him to these two goddesses.
:"Ishtar is the Assyrian and Babylonian counterpart to the Sumerian Inanna and to the cognate northwest Semitic goddess Astarte" Dogface 13:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Easter alleged a Babylonian festival" 

message: Surely Easter was initally a pagan ritual and was around at 2400BC?
I don't think this article is neutral and also i notice that so called references in the text are actually taken from the bible.  The bible is not a factual book and is actually works from many authors - many of these books are not part of the historic timeline.  
I think a banner should be put of this page about neutrality until this issue is resolved.
Comments on this welcome..
:Pascha was never a pagan festival.  That's urban legend and conspiracy theory.Carlo 15:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Easter a Pagan religion 

message: Here's the scenario:
What if March 21 fell on a Sunday? Also, what if a full moon were to occur just after midnight on that Sunday, March 21?? Then, wouldn't Easter fall on March 21, since it is the first Sunday on or after the first full moon on or after the vernal equinox??? PhiEaglesfan712 15:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, in the Church tables, "vernal equinox" and "full moon" as well as "Sunday" are regarded as full days, not instants of time. Second, your rule is erroneous: Easter is the first Sunday after (never on) the first full moon (Luna XIV) that is on or after the vernal equinox (March 21). Indeed, in the actual rules, it is explicitly stated that if Luna XIV occurs on a Sunday, that Easter must be delayed one week. Luna XIV, the fourteenth day of the moon, is the term used in the Church tables—full moon is not used. Nevertheless, during the Middle Ages, Luna XIV was regarded as equivalent to the full moon. Between 1700 and 1775 in Germany and until 1844 in Sweden, astronomical tables and the instants of the full moon and of the vernal equinox were actually used, based on the Rudolphine Tables of Johannes Kepler (1627). As a result, Easter was one week early about once every twenty years (IIRC). — Joe Kress 21:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It is on or after March 21, which is the vernal equinox according to the Roman Catholic Church. Specifically, in paragraph 7 of Inter gravissimas we find the definition "the vernal equinox, which was fixed by the fathers of the [first] Nicene Council at XII calends April [March 21]". This definition can be traced at least back to chapters 6 & 59 of Bede's De temporum ratione (725). This may be called the ecclesiastical vernal equinox, to distinquish it from the astronomical vernal equinox. — Joe Kress (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I should mention that my 'tracing back' is conservative. The rules were in a state of flux before Bede—actually before Charlemagne accepted the Alexandrian rules as enunciated by Bede via Alcuin sometime before 800. The vernal equinox was first specified as the demarcation between Easter seasons by Pope Dionysius of Alexandria c.250. Anatolius of Laodicea (Latakia, Syria) specified c.277 that the equinox occurred on March 22 (this comes from Eusebius, whose words were so imprecise that some believe Anatolius used March 18). The Church of Rome traditionally placed the equinox on March 25. Pope Peter of Alexandria c.305 was probably the first to place the equinox on March 21 and to fix the Alexandrian rules which we now use. But the Church of Rome refused to accept March 21 until 342 (it conveniently overlooked this history in its papal bull). Even then, its rules for [Christian] Passover differed from those of the Church of Alexandria. Although Dionysius Exiguus correctly stated the Alexandrian rules in 525, we have no evidence that the Church of Rome accepted them until the ninth century. The best discussion of these matters is by Charles W. Jones in "Development of the Latin ecclesiastical calendar", pp.1-122 within Bedae opera de temporibus (1943), which I neglected to cite in the article. The article already has some of this history, as does Computus, without mentioning the vernal equinox. — Joe Kress (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The new moon in question is still an ecclesiastical new moon.  Easter is the 3rd Sunday in the ecclesiastical lunar month that begins on a date in the range March 8 (which begins at sunset on March 7) to April 5 (which ends at sunset on April 5) inclusive.  In the ecclesiastical lunar calendar there is always exactly one lunar month that has its new moon (i.e. its first day) in this 29-day period.--Mockingbird0 (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why can't Easter fall on March 21??? 

message: In Eastern Christianity, Easter falls between 4 April and 8 May between 1900 and 1970 based on the Gregorian date. Does it mean there was no Easter before 1900 or after 1970???  This needs rewriting.  --Jotel 07:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made an attempt to clarify the sentence, but I refuse to give all possible date ranges for years before 1900 and after 2099. — Joe Kress 07:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orthodox Easter date 

message: Why can't Easter fall on April 26? --88.78.228.207 (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Easter is the first Sunday after (never on) the first Luna 14 (full moon) on or after March 21 (vernal equinox). The latest Luna 14 in the tables used by the Church (both the Gregorian tables used by Western churches and Julian tables used by Eastern churches) is April 18. If that happens to be a Sunday, then Easter must be delayed for one week (seven days) to April 25 (Gregorian calendar in the West and Julian calendar in the East). These tables are quite complicated, see Computus. Neither set of tables uses astronomical calculations, so "full moon" and "vernal equinox" are misleading terms. — Joe Kress (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Verify this before any insertion; but I believe that the natural modification of the pre-1582 rule to accommodate the revised secular calendar (and revised knowledge of the Moon?) would have led to Easter sometimes being on April 26th, which could nor previously happen.  To preserve the traditional date range, a complication was inserted.  Verify that. 82.163.24.100 (talk) 12:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  April 26 

message: "The English name, "Easter", and the German, "Ostern", derive from the name of a putative Anglo-Saxon Goddess of the Dawn (thus, of spring, as the dawn of the year) — called Ēaster, Ēastre, and Ēostre in various dialects of Old English and Ostara in German.[4]"
OK so the next paragraphs below the article debunk this. That not very neutural imo. Its giving incorrect accounts to boot.
Xuchilbara (talk) 02:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: The cycle of Easter dates repeats after exactly 5,700,000 years.   At any stage during that cycle, does Easter ever fall on the same date 2 years in a row?  I think the answer is probably no, but I'd like confirmation.  Thanks.  --  JackofOz (talk) 11:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just modified, tested, and ran a program to compare Easter dates of consecutive years from 10,001 to 5,710,000. No repeats. But it would be interesting to see how one can reason that out.  Saros136 (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that quick response and the work you put in behind the scenes.  Pity we couldn't include this in the article, but OR is OR.  It's hard to see how reason could be of any help.  Due to the mathematical and calendric complexities, and the huge length of the cycle, I doubt there's any way to establish by reason alone that a pair can't happen.  But you never know, maybe some bright spark will read this and will demonstrate that it's not possible, without having to resort to a computer.  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In case you're wondering, this was to help answer a question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Leapin' Lent.  Thanks again.  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Its impossible for them to fall on the same date twice in a row because multiple phases of the moon do not fit evenly within a year. Thus if you go ahead exactally one year, you can never been on the same phase point and the easter date can never been the same. If this could happen, the date of easter would not move at all.--Dacium (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Dacium.  You're dead right; however it's not even necessary to consider moon phases. JimWae pointed out below that because the number of days in a year is not a multiple of 7, the same date in consecutive years can never be the same day of the week; hence, Easter, which always falls on a Sunday, can never be the same date 2 years in a row.  QED.  Even though Easter is not fixed, this reasoning works for precisely the same reason the 4th of July, for example, never happens on the same day of the week 2 years running.  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: **lights go on** - Oh, of course!  Lateral thinking works best.  Now you see why I don't contribute much to the Mathematics Reference Desk.  Thank you, JimWae.  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Same consecutive Easter date 

message: The reason for this is that the full moon involved (called the Paschal full moon) is not an astronomical full moon, but an ecclesiastical moon. The difference is that the astronomical vernal equinox is a natural astronomical phenomenon, while the ecclesiastical vernal equinox is a fixed March 21.
I reread this several times and it doesn't make sense to me.  While the first sentence is true, the second doesn't explain the difference, as it speaks to the date of the equinox rather than the moon.  A full moon is a full moon regardless of the date we set for the equinox.  Equinoxes and full moons astronomically are two independent phenomena.  (I'm not disputing the fact that there are differences between both ecclesiastical/astronomical moons and equinoxes, just saying they are two separate issues while the juxtaposition of the two sentences indicates otherwise). Gr8white (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That paragraph is indeed poorly worded. The juxtaposition is valid only because Easter can be determined using either ecclesiastical tables (both moon 14 and March 21) or astronomical tables (true full moon and true vernal equinox), but never one table from each realm. Astronomical tables (in particular, Kepler's Rudolphine Tables) were used in Germany from 1700 to 1775 and in Sweden from 1740 to 1844. — Joe Kress (talk) 07:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-sequitur? 

message: An anon IP added some text suggesting "Pascha" is a "gross misinterpretation" of something. I reverted because it didn't add any useful information and was unreferenced (and doesn't belong in the caption of an image anyway).  If there is some basis to this it might be added to etymology section if properly referenced. Gr8white (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gross Misinterpretation 

message: I've noticed the section commenting on the early Church. I would like to clarify that there is indeed evidence that the Apostles (or at least one) did in fact honor pascha.
"When the blessed Polycarp was visiting in Rome in the time of Anicetus [c. 155],... they were at once well inclined towards each other, not willing that any quarrel should arise between them upon this matter [the observance of Easter]. For Anicetus could not persuade Polycarp to forego the observance [of his Easter customs] inasmuch as these things had been always observed by John the disciple of our Lord, and by other apostles with whom he had been conversant." Irenaeus (c 180), volume 1, page 569 in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (Hendrickson Publishers' edition).
There is also a lot more to be found concerning what these early Church Fathers said and wrote (particularly that it was indeed generally insisted that they celebrated it on Sunday) that I would love to include if I can get the time and access to this page. Any further questions or comments can be directed to me at sphorner at the g-m-a-i-l domain dot com.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by The masters servant (talk • contribs) 01:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerns regarding the Early Church section 

message: Is Sunday brunch a religious or non-religious aspect of Easter celibrations?  Should it be mentioned? --Firefly322 (talk) 06:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sunday Brunch 

message: The last amendment has added The name refers to the Eostur-monath, a month of the Celtic Year... sorry but Easter isn't really celtic, and the word Eostar-monath is anything but celtic. Did someone mean 'Germanic year? Akerbeltz (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. Carlo (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celtic?? 

message: 33 is given as the year of the death of Jesus in the article. I understood that "most" people understood that Dionysius Exiguus computed the year wrong when he came up with the current system of numbering. (Dionysius article is ambiguous as well). Anyway, outside of Wikipedia (!) I thought most people believed that Jesus was really born in 4 BC (no year 0) and therefore died in 30 AD, in his 33rd year. This can even be pinned down to a day of the year 33, April 7 to correspond with Passover that year. Here is one such chronology which is probably not usable as a reference unfortunately. Student7 (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year 

message: I'm working on a footer for Easter related pages.  Feel free to jump in and help make it better. Remember (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Easter footer 

message: Someone has just coined the word "Anglosphere" for certain Anglophone countries. Isn't this WP:OR? Is India and Nigeria included? I assume not though there are more English books published in India than anywhere else. Sounds ambiguous to me. Student7 (talk) 11:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not OR as there is some established usage (>100,000 Google hits), though the term is somewhat ambigusous.  The Anglosphere article was created in May 2006. Gr8white (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Note that nearly all definitions include South Africa which has to have different customs, wouldn't they? It seems too ambiguous to me. I realize the editor was trying to be concise but new definition just too broad, perhaps. Student7 (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anglosphere 

message: The statement that Easter is "also called Pascha" is odd.  That is the Latin term (hence "paschal", French "Pâques" etc.), but never used in English.
:Not true. Google "Pascha". Apparently that is the common term used by English-speaking members of Eastern Orthodox churches. Gr8white (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pascha" 

message: The etymology section should note that the ultimate root of the word is the same as that for "east" and "yeast" - all connoting "rising."
:I don't know that there's any particular significance.  The etymology section seems to cover it pretty well.  It's true it probably comes from the same root as "east" via the pagan goddess, and ultimately derives from a word meaning "dawn".  "Yeast" doesn't seem to be closely related.  There isn't any direct association with "rising". Gr8white (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important etymology omitted 

message: The etymology section "germanic languages" ought to mention, that there are only two languages, English and German, where the origin of the feast's name might derive from something like "eostur". All other germanic languages from Dutch to Icelandic use a form of "pascha" like all the non-germanic languages do. So if there ever was a goddess "Eostre" or so, it seems to have been at least no goddess common to all germanic tribes. Says someone who would like to apologize for his poor English. By the way: Happy Easter to everyone out there!80.144.191.189 (talk) 10:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology "germanic languages"