When Is The REAL Date Of Easter??

Jesus' Resurrection Mosaic From Byzantine Era

Easter was celebrated Sunday, April 8th in 2012.  Easter falls on different dates each year, based on what you believe.  You may not know that the Eastern Orthodox Church and Catholic Church celebrate Easter on different dates.

In case you don't know who the Eastern Orthodox Church is, they are the church that sprung up in Constantinople after the East-West split in the Roman Empire in 285 A.D.  This church does not recognize the Papal Supremacy and has their own leaders and hierarchy.  Thus, they created their own set of standards based on the first Seven Ecumenical Councils. 

The First Council Of Nicea

 

 

The first of these Councils, which met to determine all of the unanswered questions was the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.  At this council, one major issue resolved was the date of Easter.  Early Christians had always set Easter to a Sunday falling during the month of Nisan on the Jewish Calendar.  Some Christians believed the Jewish leadership was setting Nisan at the wrong time, so they wanted a more universal way to determine Easter.

The council decided that it should be set to one specific day for every Christian to celebrate.  The council did not designate that Easter must always be a Sunday.  They would base this date on their own idea of when the "real" month of Nisan is in their own estimation, no longer relying on what Jewish leaders laid out as their month time-line.

Later on, the date was affixed by Roman Catholics to always fall on Sunday.  It occurs on the first Sunday after the Paschal Moon.  The Paschal Moon is the first full moon occurring after the Equinox marking the beginning of Spring.  Protestants also choose to use this date for Easter.  People who are not religious in the US also celebrate secular forms of the holiday on this date.  The Eastern Orthodox Church has a different set of standards, which causes their Easter date to differ from the Roman Catholic date.

Paschal Full Moon 2012

 

 

I have problems with this because I read the Bible for myself and it's pretty clear when it should be or at least a more accurate time to celebrate Easter.  I think the idea of celebrating Easter on a different date each year is inaccurate to say the least.  Here is what I would use to determine when Easter should be celebrated if you want it to be historically accurate.

As you may know, dates on a calendar fall on different days each year.  I was born on Tuesday, August 7th, 1984, but my birthday is not on a Tuesday every year.  So, Easter should not be on a Sunday every year if it is going to be celebrated on it's actual day.

Determining a "fixed" date of Easter requires just looking at a calendar and understanding how old calendars and new calendars line up.  When was Jesus born?  Well, Jesus was born about 4 BC and this is the best guess most scholars can come up with.  Most scholars base this date on the date of a general understanding of the time frame of what is written in Luke.  However, some things Luke mentions occurred in different years, sometimes even 40 years apart.  So, who knows what the exact year is?

Nativity Priming On Textile From Byzantine Empire

 

 

If we just use this 4 BC date and say "ok, that's accurate enough" then we will say that Jesus died in 30 A.D., another date most scholars use.  If Jesus died in 30 A.D., then we can give an accurate date of Jesus death based on that year's Passover celebration.  That year, Passover was celebrated from April 7th-April 14th on today's calendar.  This means that Jesus was put to death on either April 13th(if you are a Thursday crucifixion believer) or April 14th(if you are a Good Friday believer), since he was crucified at the end of Passover week.

The amazing coincidence is that this exact Passover actually fell from Friday-Friday and would have Jesus having resurrected on a Sunday.  This would "work" with the events as unfolded in the Gospels, especially how it's laid out in Mark from Chapter 10 to Chapter 15.  I think it gives a good solid foundation for a fixed date.

If we use this, then Easter would always fall on April 16th.  This would be hard to enact, but it is a lot more accurate than using moon phases and whatnot.  Just read the bible, enact the real date after calendars are aligned.  To me, instead of this: "Accordingly, Gregorian Easter can fall on 35 possible dates—between 22 March and 25 April inclusive. It last fell on 22 March in 1818, and will not do so again until 2285. It fell on 23 March in 2008, but will not do so again until 2160. Easter last fell on the latest possible date, 25 April, in 1943 and will next fall on that date in 2038. However, it fell on 24 April, just one day before this latest possible date, in 2011 and will not do so again until 2095. The cycle of Easter dates repeats after exactly 5,700,000 years, with 19 April being the most common date, happening 220,400 times or 3.9%, compared to the median for all dates of 189,525 times or 3.3%.", we could just use that fixed date.  It would not be on Sunday every year.  There wouldn't be a "Good Friday" since that would no longer always be Friday. 

Maybe it makes things easier or more convenient to follow the system in place now.  However, as a person who is really interested in correct history, the accurate date of history is highly important to me.  Making Easter April 16th every year would be the way to do so.  It would not have to follow any lunar cycles or Passover dates, it would just be the day it happened.  I have read why Easter is when it is based on councils, decrees, etc. I know that the exact year of Jesus birth and therefore death are highly debated.  I guess the date of Easter will never change to a fixed format, but at least there's something to think about in all this as a fan of historical accuracy.


<><>My Sources<><>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover
http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/Passover_dates.htm
http://amazingdiscoveries.org/S-deception_Jesus_day_died_Mark_crucifixion
http://nasb.scripturetext.com/mark/10.htm
http://www.space.com/15180-easter-date-paschal-full-moon.html
http://tinyurl.com/6ux27dx
http://tinyurl.com/766zks5

The Ideology Of USA: Little Change Since 1854

Above is a map of the United States.  It's not a statistical map, simply a map.  The colors are just to make it easier to distinguish state borders.  It's a nice map; 50 states, coexisting with nothing dividing them up except for imaginary lines. However, we all know that many things divide the states from each other in ideology.

Going from one state to the next can be like entering a new country when you look at the laws, leadership and ideology of the states' residents.  Obama famously said in 2008, that we would no longer need to be red states or blue states, but the United States of America.  It was a great thing to say, but it doesn't appear to be happening any time soon.

We all know 2012 is a Presidential Election year. I can sit down right now and at least pick 45 states' winner and not be incorrect.  How can I do this?  Because I know our ideological history, and I can see the map beforehand.  How?  Well to see just how long we have had the same basic ideological map, you need to go back to 1854, and look at the US map, as divided into free states, slave states, and territories which were allowed to have slavery by popular vote.

As you can see, the South was clear cut, the North was clear cut and the territories that allowed slavery were in the middle of the western territories.  The three west coast states were free.  Study this map because it will be the basis for every map that I'm about to show you.  We have not changed very much since this map in ideology based on location on the map.  It's pretty sad that for 200 years, things haven't really changed much.  Let's take a look at some more maps.

Here's a Civil War map.  You can see which states were in the US, and which states were in the CSA.  If you had 8th grade American History, this map shouldn't be anything you haven't seen before.  Reference this map after viewing the next set of maps in this post.

Here is a map of the 2000 US Election results.  George W. Bush states are in Red, while Al Gore states are in blue.  Look familiar?  The ideologies of people between 1861 and 2000 appear to be darn near the same with very few exceptions.  That is an amazing fact in and of itself.  A person brought to 2000 from 1861 would see this election map and say "Yeah, that's what I expect to see."  Think about that.  Let's see another map:

Here's the 2004 election map.  Kerry in blue, Bush in red.  It's similar to the above map, except that now New Mexico has gone red, meaning that every former slave-by-popular-vote territory has gone red, and Vermont has gone blue, meaning that the entire Northeast stronghold from the Civil War has gone blue.  Let's look at some more.

Here's the 2008 map.  Obama in blue, McCain in red.  This map is the first map since 1996 that didn't look exactly like the 1861 slave state/free state map.  Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida have gone blue here.  Obama was swept into office by a big majority, much of which was based on Bush's performance over the previous 8 years.

So what we see here with these three election maps, is that when people want a change, they make it happen.  Here's the 1996 map.

Comparing this map to the 2000 map, you can see the drastic differences.  The map does look a little similar to the 1861 Slave State/Free State map, but there are drastic differences based on ideology.  People liked Clinton in the South because he was seen as a Southerner.  He had Al Gore as his running mate, who was from Tennessee, so it was basically two Southerners who were able to pull out states like Arkansas, Tennessee, Louisiana, Kentucky, Florida and even Arizona.  So when you compare it to the 2000 map, you can see how many people went back to their original ideologies and the map was re-organized accordingly.

While there are definitely exceptions, especially in years affected by some kind of drastic shift in ideology or economic conditions, we can pretty much bank on the election map to look like the 1854/1861 maps.  It's not just visible on election maps however.  You can see this same pattern on maps of social issue trends, ideology trends, religious trends, and any other trends around our nation.  Here are a few examples.

 Let's look at the map I think would most obviously go along with the 1854/1861 map.  Here's the US segregation map.  You can see the whole of the south, as well as Maryland, WV and Delaware had segregation by law.  You can see that a lot of states just didn't have a law one way or the other, such as California, the Dakotas, Oregon, etc.  You can see still more states where segregation is prohibited, most of the north, Colorado, Idaho and Washington.  Besides Colorado and Idaho, I think we can see that this is a North State/South State thing, to no one's surprise.  Some states had "local option" legalities.  This was especially troublesome, probably worse than outright Jim Crow states.  I feel that I would not be able to live in a state of constant fear of whether or not my town would be taken over by segregationists if we weren't segregated currently.  I think a person would rather know right up front one way or the other.

The above map is of one of the most controversial of all discussed laws in the country: Capital Punishment.  It shows the states with death penalty, the states that haven't used it since 2000, and the states where it's not constitutional, and the states that do not have death penalty.  It definitely has the look, except that the west coast three have the death penalty.  When you look at the next map on the death penalty, you can see how even states that have this enacted have used it in a way that would resemble the 1861 ideology.

Look familiar?  It should.  It's pretty much the map from 1861, by executions.  As we can see, the slave state/slave BPV territories really like to execute people.  Conversely, the states that were free, that have death penalty, do not execute nearly as many people.  Again, the ideology of residents of certain states has been pretty consistent for 150 years.

In case you can't read the legend, here's what it says:  States in Dark Blue: Gay marriage could be legalized soon.  States in Brighter Blue: Gay marriage legal.  States in Red with Blue Stripes: Gay marriage banned but they have gay civil unions.  States in Red: Gay marriage is banned by constitutional amendment.  States in Grey: Gay marriage could be banned soon.  This map is almost completely up to date; Washington signed gay marriage into law recently.  You can see that legal vs illegal states, including pending, really follows the same map layout as 1854/1861 pretty well yet again.

In case you don't know what Right To Work Law is, it basically means that you have a right to employment at a workplace without being forced to join the union of said business.  Some people argue that it allows you more freedom in choice of work, while others say it is just a union-busting method by big business to ultimately pay workers lower wages and give them less benefits.  In some studies, it has been pointed out that workers in RTW states make less.  Here, you can see that it follows that same 1854/1861 pattern.  Hmm.

Another big issue of debate between Red States and Blue States seems to be gun control, firearm safety laws.  While I couldn't find a map showing strong gun control law states vs lax gun control law states, I did find this interesting map.  It's from 2007 and shows the number of deaths caused by injuries sustained from firearms.  The darker states are the old South and Slave BPV territories, while the lighter states seem to be the old North and the Western Three.  Again, just an observation of how the colors seem to mirror 1854/1861 here.

This is my final map.  This is a map from 2010, showing the HDI by state for the US.  HDI stands for Human Development Index.  It basically combines your state's score in four indexes: Life Expectancy, Education(including Literacy Rate), Mean Years of Education of Residents, and Average Income.  The way to read this map is to basically see that the lighter the color, the worse the state scored in HDI.  You can see that, not to beat a dead horse, it follows the 1854/1861 map pretty well in states that are grouped together by score.

If you take these cumulatively, you can see that states have basically had their ideologies set in stone since 1854, with very little change.  People can temporarily shift for an election, but it is not a long-term shift.  I don't see any major shift in ideology in the near future for any area of the country.  It seems that since 2000, ideology has only become more engrained, and people have really clung to the red state/blue state idea.  It's sad to think the country hasn't changed it's thinking in 150 years, and that there have been "safe havens" for people of certain schools of thought.  

Will it ever change?  As someone who has lived in a strong Southern ideological state, and someone who has lived in a state with southern mentality, but goes blue locally, I can say that I think it will take something absolutely major in history to change how people living anywhere think as a general consensus.  I don't know if I will see that change in my lifetime.  What do you think?

Minor Inconvience: Major Expense

There is a wedge issue that has become very popular among Republican circles in the last two years.  It has even had some support among Democrats.  It is the drug testing of welfare recipients.  Read quickly, it sounds like a no-brainer: Drug test those who are receiving Gov't dollars in welfare.  However, when you dig deeper, you realize that there is so much more to it than that.

Maybe you think this is a good idea, but did you think about the cost?  Yeah, drug testing costs money.  Let's go to Florida, where they have had this in place already.  Florida reported in it's first batch of results that 98% of all tested, passed.  2% failed and were denied their welfare benefits.  So you're saying, "Ok, there are people on welfare who do drugs, and this is a good way to punish them and save the state money."  You're pretty wrong about that.  Read the statistics for yourself:

Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free.

That compares with roughly $32,200-$48,200 the state may save on one month’s worth of rejected applicants.

Net savings to the state: $3,400 to $5,000 annually on one month’s worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800 to $60,000 for a program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.*

So a program that costs $178MM a year, and saves less than 1% of that cost spent.  So why would fiscal conservatives push this through and be proud of having this in place?  Some of them really do feel that drug users shouldn't have welfare.  That's fair, but not even close to the majority consensus that this is a great way to make money.  Yes, Governor of Florida, Rick Scott, who championed this bill had monetary ties to this bill.  Surprised?

Rick Scott used to be in the health care business.  He started a chain of walk-in clinics called Solantic Corp., which provided many services including drug testing.  *Spoiler Alert* Solantic Corp landed the monopoly on drug testing welfare recipients in Florida after the bill became law.  Rick Scott transferred $62 million in stock to his wife at this time.  So basically, tax payers are putting a lot of money directly into Rick Scott's wife's bank account, and getting nothing in return.  The state is losing millions of dollars.  So much for the fiscal conservatism myth huh?

Rick Scott: *Insert Super Villain Laugh Here*

In October, the ACLU filed a lawsuit to stop this law, and a federal judge issued a halt order to the drug testing program.  Rick Scott, of course, has vowed to fight for this law and it is making it's rounds in court.  Currently, the drug testing program is still on hold while it's constitutionality is being questioned.  The judge ruled that it may violate the Fourth Amendment, illegal search and seizure.  I for one, hope that the citizens of Florida get the right deal on this.  This law needs to be scrapped from the books and the tax payers do not need to be paying for a program losing this much money, yet making their Governor exponentially richer at the same time.  Floridians voted this man in, and they kind of deserve what they get, but the ones who didn't don't deserve this.

Making money off of a social issue must be a dream for conservatives.  I mean, what a better way to get the best of both worlds?  You punish people you hate, and at the same time are making a fortune.  It's not really a minor inconvenience for the state of Florida, it's a major waste of tax dollars.  Are there people on welfare who are also on illegal narcotics?  Sure, it was 2% of those tested who came back positive.  However, it is not worth this kind of cost to make sure that everyone on welfare is clean.  The cost far outweighs the "benefit."


 *http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/08/98_of_florida_welfare_applicants_pass_newly_implemented_drug_tests_discrediting_governor.html