Featured Answer To Passover Comments

Yes, it IS. remember, "pascha" is a translateration of the Hebrew "p'sach", the word GOD used for passover. And pascha is the SAME WORD Jesus is quoted as using for passover-unless you believe Jesus observed Easter...

No, it DOESN'T. Remember, passover was given ONLY TO ISRAEL, and in that time/place, there were very few Israelis who weren't Jews. The temple was run by Jews, as the Levites bacame Jews during the reign of Jeroboam in old Israel.

No, the "Savior's passover" was & is the "Lord's Supper". However, as a Jew, Jesus observed passover same as all other Jews, as GOD had declared it was to be observed by Israel FOR EVER.

And Jesus was resurrected on the 17th of Nisan by the Jewish calendar. This would place Him in the tomb 3 days & 3 nights, as He died & was entombed on the 14th.

Besides that, the resurrection was separate from passover, although passover was still ongoing.

You're REALLY straining for excuses, Mr. Kurecki. The FACT is, "pascha" is the very same word all 29 times it appears in the Koine Greek of the New Testament, both before and after Jesus' resurrection. Simple fact is, Easter's a GOOF in Acts 12:4.

 

Yes, Herod had PLENTYA reason! He saw that his whacking James pleased those jews, so he figured it'd please'em even more if THEY got to whack Peter, but they wouldn't do it during passover.

And, if Easter HAD then existed, neither Herod nor those Jews woulda observed it ! ! !

No, Jesus wasn't "brought forth to the people".

Matt. 26:47 And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people.

A crowd formed after those men had busted Jesus; this crowd was incited by the Jewish religious leaders who wanted Jesus dead. Remember, Peter followed at a discreet distance & denied being Jesus' disciple 3 times. None of Jesus' followers dared speak up then, partly because it was appointed for Jesus to be deserted, among the other things that were appointed to happen to Him.

 

Yeah...Laid Rubik's Cube eggs.

 

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT...

I don't doubt there were some who observed the anniversary of Jesus' resurrection a year after it occurred, but there was no formal observance with a particular name. remember, the name "Easter" didn't come about until Constantine's catholic missionaries brought "Ostern" back from the Germans in the 300s AD.

But, none of what you posted is germane to this discussion, and here's why...All this overloox the FACT that Herod was waiting for the Jews he was trying to please to finish observing PASSOVER, which was a week long. There's just no skating around that FACT. So, even if there had been a "Christian pascha" with a name in Luke's day, it was NOT what Herod was waiting on.

 

It appears Mr. Kurecki has conceded his "pro-Easter" argument here, as there's just no getting around the FACT that Herod was waiting for PASSOVER to end, and that neither he nor the Jews he was trying to please woulda observed Jesus' resurrection.

 

Know what "Bah! Humbug" means?

"The times, they are a-changin' "

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT...

Apparently, I've studied this matter somewhat more than you. Tyndale translated the New Testament first. When he began on the OT, he realized "Ester" would be outta place, so he coined 'passover' for the p'sach observance. Later versions, knowing the difference between Easter & passover, used the latter term more, with the 1560 Geneva Bible dropping Easter completely. Thus, it stands as a goof in the KJV.

And, like Mr. Kurecki, you try to skate around the FACT that Herod was waiting for the Orthodox Jewish religious leadership of Jerusalem to finish with PASSOVER before they'd be ready to take Peter off his hands.

Not mentioning that fact won't make it go away.

 

I'll have it swallered long B4 U get your CAMEL down!

 

Awwww, U spoilt mah day! I thunk 'Osteen' wuz de way us rednex sed 'Holstein' !

 

Once again, you FAIL to mention the FACT that herod was waiting for the Jewish religious leadership to finish with PASSOVER. But that's typical for a KJVO who has no defense against a FACT. All your attempts to tell me something I already knew-that paschal/pask/pascall, etc. were synonymous with Ester/Easter for a time in English. Our grandparents sometimes suffered from "catarrh" or "the fluxes". Did those diseases end when their names were changed?

Now, backta your post:

Apparently, the English translators who followed Tyndale did just that, as time passed. Most of'em, such as Coverdale, had been students of Tyndale's, so they followed his lead.

Cuz he CHOSE so, same as you chose to ask me. Perhaps he chose so as to avoid a wooden-sounding repetitious wording of the verse.

Yes, to a KJVO, it IS.

Yerp!

I toldja why once, but it apparently went over your head, so I'll type S-L-O-W-L-Y so it won't pass you by again...

Tyndale translated the New Testament FIRST, but when he started on the OT & came to the parts with"p'sach" in them, he decided that Easter would be 'way outta place, as the OT times were before JESUS came to earth. Thus, he coined a word, as in the event commemorated by p'sach, the destroying angel PASSED OVER the Israelis.

Now...the word 'pascha' appears 29 times in the New Testament Greek, and the KJV renders it 'passover' 28 times, except for the goof in Acts 12:4. Now, if passover hadn't replaced pascall/ester in common usage for that observance, why didn't the AV men render it "Easter" every time? And why did they place an "Easter-Finder' in the AV 1611? (Please don't use the ridiculous answer that the events Acts 12 took place after Jesus' resurrection.)

 

I agree.

The KJVOs try to dance around that FACT by reminding us of the former interchangeable use of pask, etc. & Easter, and the fact that in MODERN Greek, pascha can mean either Easter or passover, depending upon the context. But the central matter here is what pascha meant to LUKE, not what it meant hunderds of years later. The translation is supposed to reflect HIS written thoughts, not those of the translator.

Now, they'd have some justification if the KJV read "Easter" in all 29 places where 'pascha' appears in the NT Greek, but just that one time? Newp!

And there are some FACTS from which they CANNOT escape:

1.) "Pascha" is the same Greek word JESUS is quoted from using for 'passover'.
2.) There was NO observance called "Easter" in the Jerusalem area in the time of the Acts 12 events.
3.) Neither Herod nor the Jews he was trying to please woulda celebrated any Christian observance , especially one commemorating His resurrection.
4.) Plainly, passover was ongoing when Herod busted Peter, as is evidenced in Acts 12:3. And passover is ONE WEEK LONG, as is evidenced in Ezekiel 45:21 And the WHOLE EVENT was called passover, not just the paschal lamb meal, as is evidenced by John 18:28.

Fact is, some KJVOs are simply too stubborn & close-minded to admit that "Easter" in Acts 12:4 is a booboo.

 

I've never denied that pask and Easter were at one time interchangeable, but that time had passed by the time the KJV was made, as proven by the earlier Geneva Bible's using 'passover', and the KJV's using 'passover all but that one time.

By 1611, Easter had much-more importance to those who claimed to be Christians, including both Catholix & Protestants. The AV men placed an "Easter-Finder in the AV 1611, calling Easter & Christmas the two holiest days of the year. They certainly knew Easter from passover.

And there's simply no getting away from the FACT that Herod was waiting for PASSOVER to end before turning Peter over to the Jews.