Answer To Passover Comments

[robycop3]

Jordan Kurecki:

There was a Christian Pascha celebration that came to be identified today as Easter.

Not in Luke's time. The nearest thing to it was the "Lord's Supper".

If you to go English to Greek translator and put in Easter, it will give you Pascha.

But of course. However, that fact isn't germane to THIS discussion. What matters is what it meant to LUKE, and that certainly wasn't Easter.

The Reason the King James Translators put the word Pascha is because the word Easter is used to denote the Christian Celebration of Pascha.Which is what I believe Herod was waiting for to pass.in Acts 12:4

No, he WASN'T! Remember, Herod was trying to please the "Orthodox" Jewish religious leadership in Jerusalem, who were observing PASSOVER at that time, as Acts 12:3 sez. Herod was waiting for passover to end so he could turn Peter over to those Jews.

Webster's 1828 dictionary Easter - A festival of the christian church observed in commemoration of our Savior's resurrection. It answers to the pascha or passover of the Hebrews, and most nations still give it this name, pascha, pask, paque.

Fine-n-dandy. However, Luke wrote "Acts" between 54-68 AD, and Easter didn't exist then.

There is evidence that Early Christians celebrated a Christian Paschal celebration.

But if they did, it certainly wasn't called either Easter or passover, and Herod was working AGAINST the Christians, and certainly would NOT have been honoring any Christian observance! And the Christians were a small minority in that time/place, with NO political power.

This makes sense considering most of the early church were Jews who were used to celebrating Passover every year.. it's really not a stretch of imagination to think that they observed a Christian Pascha which we now would call Easter.

OTOH, it's a BIG stretch, past the breaking point! easter came about in the 300s AD, when Constantine's catholic missionaries to the Germans saw a German spring rite called "Ostern", complete with legendary egg-laying bunnies, hot-cross buns, & new headgear for the ladies. The missionaries worked the story of Jesus' resurrection into this rite & brought it back to the Holy Roman Empire and into the Roman Catholic Church, where it evolved into what it is today.

It's a simple FACT that after Herod busted Peter, he was NOT waiting for anything called Easter to pass. He was waiting for the Jewish religious leaders he was trying to please to finish with PASSOVER, plain-n-simple! Were he waiting for any other observance to be over, Luke woulda used that observance's name. However, he used 'pascha', the SAME WORD he CONSISTENTLY used for PASSOVER in all his known writings.

 

[agedman]

Very good response, roby!

When I read the last page of the closed thread, I thought this needs addressed.

And then your response popped up.

Very good.

Certainly, the early church celebrated the resurrection. Every time they met, and more so as the persecution came to each assembly's door step.

They certainly didn't call it Easter, or Passover.

Perhaps they called it - Hope.

 

[evenifigoalone]

I've read the KJV for most of my life, and mine always read that verse as "Easter", not "Pascha". Am I missing something?

 

[agedman]

I've read the KJV for most of my life, and mine always read that verse as "Easter", not "Pascha". Am I missing something?

For decades I preferred the KJV, but have come to recognize the NASB is a far better literal translation.

This is just not my own thinking, but nearly every true scholar recognizes the NASB sacrifices readability for accuracy of translation.

Here is the Acts verse in the NASB:

4 When he had seized him, he put him in prison, delivering him to four squads of soldiers to guard him, intending after the Passover to bring him out before the people.
​

 

[robycop3]

I've read the KJV for most of my life, and mine always read that verse as "Easter", not "Pascha". Am I missing something?

""Pascha" is the Greek word the KJV incorrectly renders 'Easter' in Acts 12:4. It appears 29 times in the Greek, and is rendered 'passover' 28 times in the KJV.

Now, I fully realize that at one time, easter was used for passover in English, especially before Tyndale coined the word 'passover' in the 1530s, but after that, the interchangeability was dropped.

The Geneva Bible reads "the passoeuer" in Acts 12:4, and it's older than the KJV.

BTW, let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Actually, there's no doctrine affected by that goof in the KJV, but it DOES demolish the KJVOs' claim of perfection for the KJV.

Far-more-significant is the KJV's booboo in 1 Tim. 6:10, to-wit, "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil". Virtually everyone, Christian or not, knows of some evil not done for lova $$, so that rendering casts doubt upon the absolute veracity of God's word. The best rendering of the Greek here is"the love of money is A root of ALL SORTS of evil."

BTW, my apology for initially addressing the title of this thread directly to Mr. Kurecki, and my thanx to the moderator who corrected it!

 

[robycop3]

Very good response, roby!

When I read the last page of the closed thread, I thought this needs addressed.

And then your response popped up.

Very good.

Certainly, the early church celebrated the resurrection. Every time they met, and more so as the persecution came to each assembly's door step.

They certainly didn't call it Easter, or Passover.

Perhaps they called it - Hope.

First, thanx!

Next-I'm sure the apostles & other Christians converted before Jesus' resurrection observed it in some sorta fashion, but it was a good while before any regular observance with a special name came into being. And they remembered it in the "Lord's Supper", as Jesus had commanded. I'd venture to say the early Christians observed the Lord's Supper much-more-often than just once a year. While JESUS commanded it to be observed, He didn't say how often.

The issue isn't about any doctrine being affected by Easter-passover; it's about the KJVO claim that the KJV is perfect. The Easter booboo is empirical evidence against that technical perfection.

However, the KJV, as are all other valid Bible translations, is perfect for GOD'S intended use!

BTW, the "Easter-passover thingie" has been discussed ad nauseam in older threads within this forum. Anyone interested in those discussions can simply enter "Easter" into a forum search.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Jordan Kurecki:

Not in Luke's time. The nearest thing to it was the "Lord's Supper".



But of course. However, that fact isn't germane to THIS discussion. What matters is what it meant to LUKE, and that certainly wasn't Easter.



No, he WASN'T! Remember, Herod was trying to please the "Orthodox" Jewish religious leadership in Jerusalem, who were observing PASSOVER at that time, as Acts 12:3 sez. Herod was waiting for passover to end so he could turn Peter over to those Jews.




Fine-n-dandy. However, Luke wrote "Acts" between 54-68 AD, and Easter didn't exist then.




But if they did, it certainly wasn't called either Easter or passover, and Herod was working AGAINST the Christians, and certainly would NOT have been honoring any Christian observance! And the Christians were a small minority in that time/place, with NO political power.



OTOH, it's a BIG stretch, past the breaking point! easter came about in the 300s AD, when Constantine's catholic missionaries to the Germans saw a German spring rite called "Ostern", complete with legendary egg-laying bunnies, hot-cross buns, & new headgear for the ladies. The missionaries worked the story of Jesus' resurrection into this rite & brought it back to the Holy Roman Empire and into the Roman Catholic Church, where it evolved into what it is today.

It's a simple FACT that after Herod busted Peter, he was NOT waiting for anything called Easter to pass. He was waiting for the Jewish religious leaders he was trying to please to finish with PASSOVER, plain-n-simple! Were he waiting for any other observance to be over, Luke woulda used that observance's name. However, he used 'pascha', the SAME WORD he CONSISTENTLY used for PASSOVER in all his known writings.

1. 3,000 people got saved in 1 day at Pentecost, and then it says people were added daily. Act 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
The early church had a lot of people. For you to say they had no political power and were small is unfounded on facts and the bible

2. Your information on Easter's origin being 300 AD is false.

Theophilus of Caesarea (180 A.D.) "We would have you know, too, that in Alexandria also they observe the festival on the same day as ourselves. For the Paschal letters are sent from us to them, and from them to us: so that we observe the holy day in unison and together." Epistle on the Question of the Passover Ante-Nicene Fathers vol.8 p.774
Melito of Sardis (died c.190 A.D.) (Quartodecimian) wrote an entire work on Easter called On Pascha.
Irenaeus (182-188 A.D.) wrote an entire treatise on Easter. " fragment 7 Questions and Responses of Orthodoxy.
Polycrates of Ephesus (196 A.D.) was for a time excommunicated by the bishop of Rome for being a Quartodecimian
Tertullian (200-240 A.D.) "We rejoice in the same privilege also from Easter to Whitsunday." The Chaplet ch.3 p.94
Hippolytus bishop of Portus (225-235/6 A D.) criticized Quartodecimians who observed Easter at the same time the Jews celebrate Passover. The Refutation of All Heresies book 8 ch.11 p.123
Origen (225-254 A.D.) "he who considers that ‘Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us,’ and that it is his duty to keep the feast by eating of the flesh of the Word, never ceases to keep the paschal feast; for the pascha means a ‘passover,’ and he is ever striving in all his thoughts, words, and deeds, to pass over from the things of this life to God," Origen Against Celsus book 8 ch.22 p.647
Cyprian of Carthage (246-258 A.D.) in his Letters 29, 39, and 54 speaks of Easter-day.
Firmilian (246-258 A.D.) mentions "the celebration of Easter" Letter 74 ch.6 p.391
Anatolius of Alexandria (270-280 A.D.) discusses when Easter should be celebrated. Paschal Canon ch.10 p.146-147. Also ch.15 p.150-151.
Malchion (270 A.D.) (partial) says the evil Paul of Samosata did on the Paschal festival. Letter written by Malchion in the name of the Synod of Antioch against Paul of Samosata ch.2 p.170
Instructions of Commodianus ch.75 p.218 (240 A.D.) "They will assemble together at Easter, that day of ours most blessed; and let them rejoice,"
Methodius (260-312 A.D.) mentions "the fast which prepares for the Easter celebration" Banquet of the Ten Virgins book 3 ch.12 p.321
In Summary: Unless Constantine time-traveled, these early Christians give us proof they celebrated Easter long before Constantine was born.

It may not have been called Easter until later, but there was definitely A Christian Paschal celebration that probably originated in Apostolic times.
This is why the King James Translators translated it as Easter, To distinguish between the Jewish Paschal and the Christian Paschal.

I severely question your "facts" and information pertaining to Easter.

Remember this?
Joh 18:38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.
Joh 18:39 But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?
Joh 18:40 Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.

The only reason why it would please the Jews to wait until after passover is because Herod did not want to risk Christians demand the release of Peter.

Why would he wait for after passover to please the Jews? That certainly wasn't the case with Jesus...

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

""Pascha" is the Greek word the KJV incorrectly renders 'Easter' in Acts 12:4. It appears 29 times in the Greek, and is rendered 'passover' 28 times in the KJV.

Now, I fully realize that at one time, easter was used for passover in English, especially before Tyndale coined the word 'passover' in the 1530s, but after that, the interchangeability was dropped.

The Geneva Bible reads "the passoeuer" in Acts 12:4, and it's older than the KJV.

BTW, let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Actually, there's no doctrine affected by that goof in the KJV, but it DOES demolish the KJVOs' claim of perfection for the KJV.

Far-more-significant is the KJV's booboo in 1 Tim. 6:10, to-wit, "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil". Virtually everyone, Christian or not, knows of some evil not done for lova $$, so that rendering casts doubt upon the absolute veracity of God's word. The best rendering of the Greek here is"the love of money is A root of ALL SORTS of evil."

BTW, my apology for initially addressing the title of this thread directly to Mr. Kurecki, and my thanx to the moderator who corrected it!

The Geneva New Testament was first published in 1557 and read "Easter" in Acts 12:4- "entending after EASTER to bringe him forth unto the people". You can see the 1557 Geneva Bible at this site here:

http://bible.zoxt.net/hex/hex.htm

When the Geneva Old Testament was published in 1560, the New Testament was revised and at that time "Easter" was changed to "passover."

 

[padredurand]

1. 3,000 people got saved in 1 day at Pentecost, and then it says people were added daily. Act 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
The early church had a lot of people. For you to say they had no political power and were small is unfounded on facts and the bible

3000 people is a large number of people but statistically insignificant. Here's a summary of an article surveying the population demographic of Israel in the 1st Century.

The population in the Land of Israel on the eve of the Great Revolt was comprised of:
About 2 million Jews
About 1.2 million Samaritans
About 600,000 foreigners
In total, about 4 million people. Source

3000 Christians represent less than 1% of the population.

 

[Logos1560]

Why would he wait for after passover to please the Jews? That certainly wasn't the case with Jesus...

King Herod was not the same person as Pilate, and the Herod of Acts 12 is a different Herod than the one at the time of Pilate. There is both scriptural and historical evidence that this Herod did seek to please the Jews.

In his commentary on Acts, Paton Gloag asserted that the Herod of Acts 12 “was strict in the observance of the Mosaic law” (I, p. 415). Gloag added: “According to the strict Jews, it was not reckoned lawful to defile their festal days with executions, and Herod Agrippa prided himself on being a strict observer of the law” (I, p. 416). In his commentary on Acts, William Humphrey reported that Josephus maintained that this Herod was “strongly attached to the Jewish law” (p. 100). In his commentary, Livermore maintained that “Herod forbore to execute Peter during the feast of Passover, out of regard to the custom of the Jews” (p. 177). In his 1645 commentary on Acts, John Lightfoot (1602-1675) noted: “Agrippa, having laid hold upon him, deferred his execution till after the Passover” (p. 322). Likewise, the 1645 Westminster Annotations have this note on “the days of unleavened bread” at Acts 12:4: “These words intimate the cause why he deferred Peter’s execution, for reverence of the Passover, which lasted eight days.”


Furthermore, the immediate context of Acts 12:4 demonstrated that king Herod was aware that his earlier action of vexing certain of the church “pleased the Jews” (Acts 12:3). The context also revealed that Herod “proceeded further” to take another action that he thought would please the Jews. Would Herod be continuing to please the Jews if he supposedly waited to observe a pagan holiday or festival or a claimed Christian observance? Would the celebrations and practices associated with a pagan festival please or offend the Jews? Does the context actually maintain that Herod in proceeding further to take Peter would then do something contradictory to this action intended to please the Jews?

It was actually Luke that used the Greek word pascha for the time for which Herod was waiting since this verse gives no indication that Herod was being directly quoted. The verse or context does not say that Herod was keeping or observing pascha. “The people” of Acts 12:4 would be referring to or be including the Jews mentioned in verse 3. According to the context, the Jews were the people that king Herod wanted to please again by his further action. Therefore, nothing in the verse and context proves that Herod could not have been waiting for the Jews to finish keeping their pascha so that he could bring Peter forth and please the Jews again. In other words, the context indicates that Herod did not want to risk displeasing the Jews by executing Peter during their Jewish pascha and may not indicate whether Herod personally had any scruples or principles against executing Peter during a festival. Herod also would have no reason to seek to displease the Jews and to honor and respect the church that he was vexing by waiting until after any claimed church celebration. Therefore, the context clearly supports the understanding that the Jews would be the ones keeping the pascha [also called the feast of unleavened bread] instead of the assertion that Herod had to be the one keeping it. If Herod was also keeping it, the context indicates that it was the Jewish pascha that he would be keeping and not some pagan festival nor any Christian celebration.


Moved by the Holy Spirit, Luke could definitely have used the Greek word in the same sense as he did in Luke 22:1. Comparing Scripture with Scripture, the context of Acts 12:3-4 is in agreement with the understanding that this Greek word was used in the same sense as in Luke 22:1. KJV-only author Floyd Jones asserted that “the context is the decisive factor for determining the final connotation of any word or phrase” (Which Version, p. 14). If there remains any uncertainty concerning how the word pascha was used at Acts 12:4, it should be translated and interpreted by the light of what is plain, clear, and certain as in Luke 22:1. Is it not sound reasoning to consider Luke and the Holy Spirit competent and credible witnesses as to the sense in which the Holy Spirit used the word pascha at Luke 22:1 and Acts 12:4?

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

3000 people is a large number of people but statistically insignificant. Here's a summary of an article surveying the population demographic of Israel in the 1st Century.



3000 Christians represent less than 1% of the population.

That's only the 1st day of the Holy Spirit coming upon the Disciples.

Who know's how many were in the church by the time Peter was in prison.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

King Herod was not the same person as Pilate, and the Herod of Acts 12 is a different Herod than the one at the time of Pilate. There is both scriptural and historical evidence that this Herod did seek to please the Jews.

In his commentary on Acts, Paton Gloag asserted that the Herod of Acts 12 “was strict in the observance of the Mosaic law” (I, p. 415). Gloag added: “According to the strict Jews, it was not reckoned lawful to defile their festal days with executions, and Herod Agrippa prided himself on being a strict observer of the law” (I, p. 416). In his commentary on Acts, William Humphrey reported that Josephus maintained that this Herod was “strongly attached to the Jewish law” (p. 100). In his commentary, Livermore maintained that “Herod forbore to execute Peter during the feast of Passover, out of regard to the custom of the Jews” (p. 177). In his 1645 commentary on Acts, John Lightfoot (1602-1675) noted: “Agrippa, having laid hold upon him, deferred his execution till after the Passover” (p. 322). Likewise, the 1645 Westminster Annotations have this note on “the days of unleavened bread” at Acts 12:4: “These words intimate the cause why he deferred Peter’s execution, for reverence of the Passover, which lasted eight days.”


Furthermore, the immediate context of Acts 12:4 demonstrated that king Herod was aware that his earlier action of vexing certain of the church “pleased the Jews” (Acts 12:3). The context also revealed that Herod “proceeded further” to take another action that he thought would please the Jews. Would Herod be continuing to please the Jews if he supposedly waited to observe a pagan holiday or festival or a claimed Christian observance? Would the celebrations and practices associated with a pagan festival please or offend the Jews? Does the context actually maintain that Herod in proceeding further to take Peter would then do something contradictory to this action intended to please the Jews?

It was actually Luke that used the Greek word pascha for the time for which Herod was waiting since this verse gives no indication that Herod was being directly quoted. The verse or context does not say that Herod was keeping or observing pascha. “The people” of Acts 12:4 would be referring to or be including the Jews mentioned in verse 3. According to the context, the Jews were the people that king Herod wanted to please again by his further action. Therefore, nothing in the verse and context proves that Herod could not have been waiting for the Jews to finish keeping their pascha so that he could bring Peter forth and please the Jews again. In other words, the context indicates that Herod did not want to risk displeasing the Jews by executing Peter during their Jewish pascha and may not indicate whether Herod personally had any scruples or principles against executing Peter during a festival. Herod also would have no reason to seek to displease the Jews and to honor and respect the church that he was vexing by waiting until after any claimed church celebration. Therefore, the context clearly supports the understanding that the Jews would be the ones keeping the pascha [also called the feast of unleavened bread] instead of the assertion that Herod had to be the one keeping it. If Herod was also keeping it, the context indicates that it was the Jewish pascha that he would be keeping and not some pagan festival nor any Christian celebration.


Moved by the Holy Spirit, Luke could definitely have used the Greek word in the same sense as he did in Luke 22:1. Comparing Scripture with Scripture, the context of Acts 12:3-4 is in agreement with the understanding that this Greek word was used in the same sense as in Luke 22:1. KJV-only author Floyd Jones asserted that “the context is the decisive factor for determining the final connotation of any word or phrase” (Which Version, p. 14). If there remains any uncertainty concerning how the word pascha was used at Acts 12:4, it should be translated and interpreted by the light of what is plain, clear, and certain as in Luke 22:1. Is it not sound reasoning to consider Luke and the Holy Spirit competent and credible witnesses as to the sense in which the Holy Spirit used the word pascha at Luke 22:1 and Acts 12:4?

except that contradicts scripture.Why would it please the Jews to have Jesus killed during the Passover, but it would displease them to kill Peter during the passover. That's contradictory and doesn't make sense.

Yes Pilate is not the same person as Herod Agrippa, But that does not mean the custom was not still kept..

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Whether "Πάσχα" should be Passover or Easter at Acts 12:4 must be determined by discerning who is using the word in this instance. If the word is used by a Jew, then the word would mean Passover. If the word is used by Herod, then the word would mean Passover or perhaps a pagan festival (although the possibility of "Πάσχα" referring to a pagan festival has no basis in history or etymology). Contrary to what many believe, it is neither the Jews nor Herod who is using the word "Πάσχα" at Acts 12:4. It is actually Luke, the Christian narrator of Acts, who is using the word "Πάσχα" to describe the timeline of events for his Christian readers, many of whom were Gentile Christians. For Luke and his Christian readers, "Πάσχα" at Acts 12:4 was no longer the Passover, but Easter. When Luke speaks in Acts 12:4 as narrator, he is using words according to the mutual Christian perspective of himself and his readers. This is evident because he uses the word "church" (εκκλησία) at Acts 12:1 to refer to Christians. This is a dignifying Christian word to refer to the congregation of those who are called out by God. Neither Herod nor the Jews would have referred to these rebels as "the called-out ones". However, when coming from a Christian narrator for a Christian audience, the word "εκκλησία" carries a Christian meaning. The same principle applies to the word "πασχα". It may well be that Herod and the Jews had no concern or knowledge about Easter, but that is not the issue. The issue is that Luke is describing the timeline of events to his Christian readers. What Herod calls mere rebels and heretics, Luke calls "Christians". Likewise, Luke, who is narrating the story to his Christian readers, uses the word "πασχα" according to its Christian meaning of "Easter" to explain the timeline of events to his Christian readers. That is why "πασχα" is Easter in Acts 12:4.


From http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/easter...eant-Easter-to-Luke-the-narrator-of-Acts-12:4

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

There is no doubt that "Πάσχα" means Easter in modern Greek. The charge, however, is that "Πάσχα" did not mean Easter until centuries after the composition of Acts 12:4. This is not true. In the Gospel of John there is already a distinction being made between the Christian Πάσχα and the Jewish Πάσχα. One of the words for Passover in modern Greek is "Πάσχα των ιουδαίων" (Passover of the Jews). We see this same phrase already in the time of John the Apostle:
John 2:13: "And the Jews' passover was at hand...." (και εγγυς ην το πασχα των ιουδαιων)
John 11:55: "And the Jews' passover was nigh at hand...." (ην δε εγγυς το πασχα των ιουδαιων)
The fact that John writes, "Jews’ Pascha (πασχα των ιουδαιων)" indicates that there was a need to qualify the word "Pascha" for the immediate audience of John's Gospel. Such a phrase would be redundant unless there were already a distinction between a "Jew's" Pascha and "another" Pascha. Apparently within the first century, Christians had already appropriated the word "Pascha" to refer to the Christian celebration of the resurrection.

Eusebius' testimony is clear that the Apostles were already celebrating the "Saviour's Pascha", which is clearly not the "Jews' Pascha":

"Ζητήσεως δῆτα κατὰ τούσδε οὐ σμικρᾶς ἀνακινηθείσης, ὅτι δὴ τῆς Ἀσίας ἁπάσης αἱ παροικίαι ὡς ἐκ παραδόσεως ἀρχαιοτέρας σελήνης τὴν τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτην ᾤοντο δεῖν ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ σωτηρίου πάσχα ἑορτῆς παραφυλάττειν, ἐν ᾗ θύειν τὸ πρόβατον Ἰουδαίοις προηγόρευτο, ὡς δέον ἐκ παντὸς κατὰ ταύτην, ὁποίᾳ δἂν ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ἑβδομάδος περιτυγχάνοι, τὰς τῶν ἀσιτιῶν ἐπιλύσεις ποιεῖσθαι, οὐκ ἔθους ὄντος τοῦτον ἐπιτελεῖν τὸν τρόπον ταῖς ἀνὰ τὴν λοιπὴν ἅπασαν οἰκουμένην ἐκκλησίαις, ἐξ ἀποστολικῆς παραδόσεως τὸ καὶ εἰς δεῦρο κρατῆσαν ἔθος φυλαττούσαις, ὡς μηδ' ἑτέρᾳ προσήκειν παρὰ τὴν τῆς ἀναστάσεως τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ἡμέρᾳ τὰς νηστείας ἐπιλύεσθαι" (Church History, Book V, 23:1)

"A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour's passover. It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour." (Church History, Book V, 23:1, Translation from www.newadvent.org)

also from http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/easter-or-passover-in-acts-124#TOC-Pascha-means-Easter-today

 

[evenifigoalone]

""Pascha" is the Greek word the KJV incorrectly renders 'Easter' in Acts 12:4. It appears 29 times in the Greek, and is rendered 'passover' 28 times in the KJV.

Now, I fully realize that at one time, easter was used for passover in English, especially before Tyndale coined the word 'passover' in the 1530s, but after that, the interchangeability was dropped.

The Geneva Bible reads "the passoeuer" in Acts 12:4, and it's older than the KJV.

BTW, let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Actually, there's no doctrine affected by that goof in the KJV, but it DOES demolish the KJVOs' claim of perfection for the KJV.

Far-more-significant is the KJV's booboo in 1 Tim. 6:10, to-wit, "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil". Virtually everyone, Christian or not, knows of some evil not done for lova $$, so that rendering casts doubt upon the absolute veracity of God's word. The best rendering of the Greek here is"the love of money is A root of ALL SORTS of evil."

BTW, my apology for initially addressing the title of this thread directly to Mr. Kurecki, and my thanx to the moderator who corrected it!

Interesting. Thanks.

 

[robycop3]

1. 3,000 people got saved in 1 day at Pentecost, and then it says people were added daily. Act 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
The early church had a lot of people. For you to say they had no political power and were small is unfounded on facts and the bible

2. Your information on Easter's origin being 300 AD is false.

Theophilus of Caesarea (180 A.D.) "We would have you know, too, that in Alexandria also they observe the festival on the same day as ourselves. For the Paschal letters are sent from us to them, and from them to us: so that we observe the holy day in unison and together." Epistle on the Question of the Passover Ante-Nicene Fathers vol.8 p.774
Melito of Sardis (died c.190 A.D.) (Quartodecimian) wrote an entire work on Easter called On Pascha.
Irenaeus (182-188 A.D.) wrote an entire treatise on Easter. " fragment 7 Questions and Responses of Orthodoxy.
Polycrates of Ephesus (196 A.D.) was for a time excommunicated by the bishop of Rome for being a Quartodecimian
Tertullian (200-240 A.D.) "We rejoice in the same privilege also from Easter to Whitsunday." The Chaplet ch.3 p.94
Hippolytus bishop of Portus (225-235/6 A D.) criticized Quartodecimians who observed Easter at the same time the Jews celebrate Passover. The Refutation of All Heresies book 8 ch.11 p.123
Origen (225-254 A.D.) "he who considers that ‘Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us,’ and that it is his duty to keep the feast by eating of the flesh of the Word, never ceases to keep the paschal feast; for the pascha means a ‘passover,’ and he is ever striving in all his thoughts, words, and deeds, to pass over from the things of this life to God," Origen Against Celsus book 8 ch.22 p.647
Cyprian of Carthage (246-258 A.D.) in his Letters 29, 39, and 54 speaks of Easter-day.
Firmilian (246-258 A.D.) mentions "the celebration of Easter" Letter 74 ch.6 p.391
Anatolius of Alexandria (270-280 A.D.) discusses when Easter should be celebrated. Paschal Canon ch.10 p.146-147. Also ch.15 p.150-151.
Malchion (270 A.D.) (partial) says the evil Paul of Samosata did on the Paschal festival. Letter written by Malchion in the name of the Synod of Antioch against Paul of Samosata ch.2 p.170
Instructions of Commodianus ch.75 p.218 (240 A.D.) "They will assemble together at Easter, that day of ours most blessed; and let them rejoice,"
Methodius (260-312 A.D.) mentions "the fast which prepares for the Easter celebration" Banquet of the Ten Virgins book 3 ch.12 p.321
In Summary: Unless Constantine time-traveled, these early Christians give us proof they celebrated Easter long before Constantine was born.

It may not have been called Easter until later, but there was definitely A Christian Paschal celebration that probably originated in Apostolic times.
This is why the King James Translators translated it as Easter, To distinguish between the Jewish Paschal and the Christian Paschal.

I severely question your "facts" and information pertaining to Easter.

Remember this?
Joh 18:38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.
Joh 18:39 But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?
Joh 18:40 Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.

The only reason why it would please the Jews to wait until after passover is because Herod did not want to risk Christians demand the release of Peter.

Why would he wait for after passover to please the Jews? That certainly wasn't the case with Jesus...

MMRRPP ! WRONG !

Remember, when Herod whacked James, according to Luke, it PLEASED THE JEWS. Now, WHICH JEWS did it please? Certainly not the Christians! And, going back to Pilate, WHICH JEWS was he afraid of? WHICH JEWS threatened to report Pilate to Caesar if they didn't get their way?

Besides that, those Jews wanted the ROMANS to crucify Jesus, as they themselves weren't allowed by the Romans to crucify someone, and, they believed that by having the Romans kill Him, the Jews would be absolved from any guilt from His death. Those Jews wouldn't enter the Roman praetorium lest they became ceremonially unclean & couldn't participate in the rest of the passover observance.

Insteada of his killing Peter himself, Herod was gonna turn him over to the Jewish religious leadership to do with as they pleased, but Herod knew those Jews wouldn't "pollute" themselves by dealing with Peter during passover; thus Herod intended to keep him in stir until passover was done.

The KJV has "Easter" in Acts 12:4 cuz somebody blew it, plain-n-simple! It has nothing to do with any "Christian pascha". If it did, Luke would NOT have used his word for "passover".

 

[padredurand]

That's only the 1st day of the Holy Spirit coming upon the Disciples.

Who know's how many were in the church by the time Peter was in prison.

Even 300,000 would put it at around 7%. The church was not a force to be reckoned with in the first Century.

"Though beheaded, and crucified, and thrown to wild beasts, and chains, and fire, and all other kinds of torture, we do not give up our confession; but, the more such things happen, the more do others in larger numbers become faithful."

-- Justin Martyr

There were ten periods of significant persecution in the first three centuries under Rome. The power and influence of the early church was found in the Holy Spirit not in numbers and political status.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

MMRRPP ! WRONG !

Remember, when Herod whacked James, according to Luke, it PLEASED THE JEWS. Now, WHICH JEWS did it please? Certainly not the Christians! And, going back to Pilate, WHICH JEWS was he afraid of? WHICH JEWS threatened to report Pilate to Caesar if they didn't get their way?

Besides that, those Jews wanted the ROMANS to crucify Jesus, as they themselves weren't allowed by the Romans to crucify someone, and, they believed that by having the Romans kill Him, the Jews would be absolved from any guilt from His death. Those Jews wouldn't enter the Roman praetorium lest they became ceremonially unclean & couldn't participate in the rest of the passover observance.

Insteada of his killing Peter himself, Herod was gonna turn him over to the Jewish religious leadership to do with as they pleased, but Herod knew those Jews wouldn't "pollute" themselves by dealing with Peter during passover; thus Herod intended to keep him in stir until passover was done.

The KJV has "Easter" in Acts 12:4 cuz somebody blew it, plain-n-simple! It has nothing to do with any "Christian pascha". If it did, Luke would NOT have used his word for "passover".

Herod would have had no reason to wait until the Passover ended to bring Peter forth as some suggest. Jesus was brought forth to the people during the Passover and the Jews eagerly demanded Him to be crucified.

 

[robycop3]

except that contradicts scripture.Why would it please the Jews to have Jesus killed during the Passover, but it would displease them to kill Peter during the passover. That's contradictory and doesn't make sense.

Yes Pilate is not the same person as Herod Agrippa, But that does not mean the custom was not still kept..

I explained that once-The Jews who'd busted Jesus wanted Him crucified, something which the Jews weren't allowed by the Romans to do. However the opposite occurred with Peter. Herod-not the Jews-busted him, and Herod was gonna allow the Jews to kill Peter or deal with him otherwise however they chose. But Herod knew the Jews wouldn't deal with Peter during passover. Also, the Jews didn't operate a jail in which they coulda kept Peter.

 

[robycop3]

Whether "Πάσχα" should be Passover or Easter at Acts 12:4 must be determined by discerning who is using the word in this instance. If the word is used by a Jew, then the word would mean Passover. If the word is used by Herod, then the word would mean Passover or perhaps a pagan festival (although the possibility of "Πάσχα" referring to a pagan festival has no basis in history or etymology). Contrary to what many believe, it is neither the Jews nor Herod who is using the word "Πάσχα" at Acts 12:4. It is actually Luke, the Christian narrator of Acts, who is using the word "Πάσχα" to describe the timeline of events for his Christian readers, many of whom were Gentile Christians. For Luke and his Christian readers, "Πάσχα" at Acts 12:4 was no longer the Passover, but Easter. When Luke speaks in Acts 12:4 as narrator, he is using words according to the mutual Christian perspective of himself and his readers. This is evident because he uses the word "church" (εκκλησία) at Acts 12:1 to refer to Christians. This is a dignifying Christian word to refer to the congregation of those who are called out by God. Neither Herod nor the Jews would have referred to these rebels as "the called-out ones". However, when coming from a Christian narrator for a Christian audience, the word "εκκλησία" carries a Christian meaning. The same principle applies to the word "πασχα". It may well be that Herod and the Jews had no concern or knowledge about Easter, but that is not the issue. The issue is that Luke is describing the timeline of events to his Christian readers. What Herod calls mere rebels and heretics, Luke calls "Christians". Likewise, Luke, who is narrating the story to his Christian readers, uses the word "πασχα" according to its Christian meaning of "Easter" to explain the timeline of events to his Christian readers. That is why "πασχα" is Easter in Acts 12:4.


From http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/easter...eant-Easter-to-Luke-the-narrator-of-Acts-12:4

Mr. Kurecki, all your excuses will NOT change the fact that EASTER DID NOT[/U] EXIST when Luke wrote "Acts", and that Hreod was waiting for the Jews to finish with PASSOVER. Luke used the SAME WORD he'd regularly used for passover in his previous writings. Were he referring to Christ's resurrection, he would NOT have used his word for 'passover', but woulda used whatever name a resurrection observance woulda been called.

It did NOT mean "Easter" to Luke cuz EASTER DIDN'T THEN EXIST ! !