100% or 95-98%?

While I don't make any demands of infallibility, IMO, there is also good credibility to the philological association of "Ishtar" and "easter".

The paganism (eggs, rabbits, etc) associated with Easter is romish and Rome IMO promotes the godess Ishtar (though she wears a marian mask). Rome designates her with the name "Queen of heaven" and gives her divine attributes.

http://www.geocities.com/reginamundi77/image53.html

The descent of Ishtar (daughter of Sin - the moon god) into hell and the resurrection of Tammuz (son of Ishtar) are associated in paganism with the full moon of the vernal equinox, etc.

http://www.themystica.org/mythical-folk/articles/ishtar.html

http://www.secularseasons.org/september/spring_equinox.html

I don't believe the philological similarity (Ishtar/Easter) is a coincidence.

HankD

 

Thanx, TC, but that isn't what I asked. If ya cannot provide any other examples of "Easter for Passover" in the early 17th century, please just admit it.

 

Ya. In Greek. Using "pascha", not a different word.

So Herod, in order to please the Jews, waited until after the season of the resurrection of Jesus Christ? Uh, right.

 

You get more convaluted every time you speak. The Jews where celebrating passover and Herod was waiting until after the passover to turn Peter over to the Jews. The Jew were not celebrating the ressurrection - they where celebrating their passover, which is exactly what Luke wrote. The unbelieving Jewish leadership would not be celebrating the ressurrection in any fashion.

 

So we're to understand that Herod, in order to please the Jews, waited until after the season of the resurrection of Jesus Christ? And that if we read that he was instead waiting for "Passover", we English people would find it "confusing and contradictory" and not easy to understand? Uh, right.

 

No, it is not confusing. Luke was writing about what the Jews were doing and what Herod was doing to please the Jews (i.e., the Jewish leadership). The Jews were celebrating their passover - we know this because Luke mentioned the days of unleavened bread. The Geneva bible also reads passover, so is the GB wrong and confusing? Those that translated it did not think so - and neither do I.

 

Mine is the 1599. But that still does not change the facts about what Luke wrote.

 

This is the crux of the matter. What was the intent of Luke in this verse of this historical book?

To me it is evident by the passage proceeding the "easter" verse:

Acts 12
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.

Evident to me because Luke himself defines "pascha" as being identified with the "days of unleavened bread".

Luke 22:1 Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.

There are no Days of Unleavened Bread for Easter (I believe hot cross buns are leavened).

While I see the connection ("For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us"), to use the word "Easter" here smacks of Rome as well as being too close to "advanced revelation" for my comfort.

To me it's almost like substituting the word "Sunday" for "the Lord's day". Fine perhaps in the vernacular, but not in the Word of God.

Besides all that, logically speaking, why in the world would Herod (whatever religious persuasion he was) want to placate the Jews by waiting until after "easter" (whatever it means).

And whatever the intended use of it in this context we can't know because the AV translators didn't leave behind any Cliff Notes for this portion.

Some of us have our own speculation(s).

Someone also spoke about confusion, but IMO the KJV choice of "easter" is the cause of the confusion.

There is no confusion whatsoever or questions as to "Why this word?" when it is correctly translated (presumably):

NKJV Acts 12
3 And because he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to seize Peter also. Now it was during the Days of Unleavened Bread.
4 So when he had arrested him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four squads of soldiers to keep him, intending to bring him before the people after Passover.

HankD

 

quote:Originally posted by robycop3:
Thanx, TC, but that isn't what I asked. If ya cannot provide any other examples of "Easter for Passover" in the early 17th century, please just admit it.

TCassidy: See what I mean? Ignore all the evidence given to you and demand something else. Pathetic.

In other words, YOU CAN'T PROVIDE IT.

 

Originally posted by TCassidy:

quote:Originally posted by Scott J:
Easter isn't necessarily inaccurate... however, the KJV use of the word "Easter" doesn't make other versions that are consistent by translating the word "Passover" inaccurate, corrupt, nor perverse.

Amen and amen! Preach it!

FrankBetz: Why certainly it does!!

First, the New Testament is written to Christians. Christians recognize Easter as the Ressurrection. Jews recognize Passover as the Day when God passed over them because of the blood of a lamb, not THE LAMB!!

Correct. But Easter as we know it did NOT exist in the days of Luke and Herod. Thus, when Luke wrote 'pascha', he meant what we call PASSOVER.

Jesus had already Risen, the season became Easter.

No, it didn't. Passover was observed then and is still observed by Jews on the dates ordained by God.


But if you wish to promote confusion, next year, tell everyone you won't be celebrating easter, but you will be celebrating Passover.

I've had many a Jew tell me that every year for a long time, and I'm not the least bit confused, and neither were they.

Then, "preaching" anything other than that which is directly related to the Kingdom of God is anti-scriptural. A direct contradiction to the commandment of Christ!

God commanded Israel to observe Passover FOREVER.(EX. 12:17, 24) This is to commemorate His bringing Israel out of Egypt & has nothing to do with Jesus' resurrection. Easter is a man-made observance not commanded anywhere in Scripture.

The Hebrew word for Passover is pesach. In Scripture it means nothing else. Its first appearance in Scripture is in Exodus 12:11, and the speaker is GOD. It has absolutely nothing to do with Easter. The Greeks later coined the word pascha from the Hebrew, and it meant nothing but Passover for a long time. And in Luke's time it meant nothing but Passover. In Acts 12, Luke sets the time frame for Peter's arrest by saying that the days of unleavened bread are then going on. Again, those days have nothing to do with what we now call Easter.

Passover was given to ISRAEL ALONE, as THEY were the ones "passed over" by God's destroyer. He doesn't expect any non-Israeli to observe it, but He DOES say that if they do, they are to follow the same rules He gave Israel. Now, does Easter follow those rules?

 

TCassidy: There is little, or no, doubt that the etymology of "easter" has its roots in the Old High German "Austron" which was their designation for "Astarte," the Phoenician Goddess of love and fertility known to the babylonians as "Ishtar."

However, that is not the point of Acts 12:4. If "Ishtar" had been the intent of the Author the word would have been "Aphrodite," the Greek incarnation of the goddess of love known to others as "Astarte," "Ishtar," "Venus," etc.

Right. And centuries before, Mars(Ares, Nergal, Tistrya) had replaced Venus as the terror of the sky. ishtar-worship had greatly declined by Luke's time. And, according to an email I received from Dr. Spiros Zhodiates, or someone in his org, "pascha" has NEVER been used for Ishtar, Venus, etc.

As for the "Romish" connection someone mentioned...Some of the Jews of Jeremiah's time had begun to worship the "queen of heaven" as Ishtar had become, due to their terror of the planet Venus. It's just coincidence that some RCs gave the same title to Mary.

For more about Venus, Mars, & Easter, read Immanuel Velikovsky's Worlds In Collision.

 

FrankBetz: "Pascha" is GREEK. Yes...and apparently LUKE wrote in Greek.


Easter is the same time of year as the Jewish Passover. The KJB translators put together an English Bible. We are New Testament Christians. Passover carries NO weight to a Christian.

But it did, and still does, to JEWS. God commanded ISRAEL to observe Passover FOREVER.(EX.12) and Luke was speaking of turning Peter over to the JEWS in Acts 12.


All you're doing is arguing against the KJB, when all the while you speak English.

Where the KJV is wrong, it's WRONG.


Passover is the English equivelent of the Greek word "pashca", but when you explain the time of year, it is better understood as Easter.

But Luke was referring to JEWS, and in HIS day, pascha did NOT mean Easter.


Passover is confusing and contradictory to your own premise of having a version that the present day individual can posess and easily understand, thus Easter is BETTER for the individual, not "passover"


No, it isn't...its incorrect. No getting around it...you're WRONG.