Answer To Passover Comments

[robycop3]

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.

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...

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.

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.

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

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.

 

[robycop3]

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.

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.

 

[Jkdbuck76]

So....was there a Pasca Bunny back then?

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

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 ! !

The Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 edition has this to say regarding the early Christian celebration of Easter. "Although the observance of Easter was at a very early period the practice of the Christian church, a serious difference as to the day for its observance soon arose between the Christians of Jewish and those of Gentile descent, which led to a long and bitter controversy. The point at issue was when the Paschal fast was to be reckoned as ending. With the Jewish Christians, whose leading thought was the death of Christ as the Paschal Lamb, the fast ended at the same time as that of the Jews, on the fourteenth day of the moon at evening, and the Easter festival immediately followed, without regard to the day of the week. The Gentile Christians, on the other hand, unfettered by Jewish traditions, identified the first day of the week with the Resurrection, and kept the preceding Friday as the commemoration of the crucifixion, irrespective of the day of the month. With the one the observance of the day of the month, with the other the observance of the day of the week, was the guiding principle. Generally speaking, the Western churches kept Easter on the first day of the week, while the Eastern churches followed the Jewish rule, and kept Easter on the fourteenth day. St Polycarp, the disciple of St John the Evangelist and bishop of Smyrna, visited Rome in 159 to confer with Anicetus, the bishop of that see, on the subject; and urged the tradition, which he had received from the apostle, of observing the fourteenth day. Anicetus, however, declined to admit the Jewish custom in the churches under his jurisdiction, but readily communicated with Polycarp and those who followed it."

 

[robycop3]

So....was there a Pasca Bunny back then?

Yeah...Laid Rubik's Cube eggs.

 

[robycop3]

The Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 edition has this to say regarding the early Christian celebration of Easter. "Although the observance of Easter was at a very early period the practice of the Christian church, a serious difference as to the day for its observance soon arose between the Christians of Jewish and those of Gentile descent, which led to a long and bitter controversy. The point at issue was when the Paschal fast was to be reckoned as ending. With the Jewish Christians, whose leading thought was the death of Christ as the Paschal Lamb, the fast ended at the same time as that of the Jews, on the fourteenth day of the moon at evening, and the Easter festival immediately followed, without regard to the day of the week. The Gentile Christians, on the other hand, unfettered by Jewish traditions, identified the first day of the week with the Resurrection, and kept the preceding Friday as the commemoration of the crucifixion, irrespective of the day of the month. With the one the observance of the day of the month, with the other the observance of the day of the week, was the guiding principle. Generally speaking, the Western churches kept Easter on the first day of the week, while the Eastern churches followed the Jewish rule, and kept Easter on the fourteenth day. St Polycarp, the disciple of St John the Evangelist and bishop of Smyrna, visited Rome in 159 to confer with Anicetus, the bishop of that see, on the subject; and urged the tradition, which he had received from the apostle, of observing the fourteenth day. Anicetus, however, declined to admit the Jewish custom in the churches under his jurisdiction, but readily communicated with Polycarp and those who followed it."

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.

 

[robycop3]

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.

 

[prophet]

Bears repeating,..

Mar 14:12
12 And the fyrste daye of swete breed when men offer ye pascall lambe his disciples sayd vnto him:where wilt thou that we goo and prepare that thou mayst eate the ester lambe?
(TyndaleBible)

Same verse, 2 words (Pascall, and Ester) used to describe the SAME LAMBE.

It's the same holiday, the same feast, the same animal, etc.
Of course, when youve been regurgitating talking points all of your Forum life, rather than actually studying...you'll choke to death on a gnat.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Bears repeating,..

Mar 14:12
12 And the fyrste daye of swete breed when men offer ye pascall lambe his disciples sayd vnto him:where wilt thou that we goo and prepare that thou mayst eate the ester lambe?
(TyndaleBible)

Same verse, 2 words (Pascall, and Ester) used to describe the SAME LAMBE.

It's the same holiday, the same feast, the same animal, etc.
Of course, when youve been regurgitating talking points all of your Forum life, rather than actually studying...you'll choke to death on a gnat.

You'll choke to death on a gnat.

Amen.

 

[ktn4eg]

remember, the name "Easter" didn't come about until Constantine's catholic missionaries brought "Ostern" back from the Germans in the 300s AD.

I wonder if the word "Ostern" is the root word for "Osteen" (i.e., JOEL OSTEEN)??? :BangHead:

 

[Yeshua1]

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

passover was the feast referred to by Luke in Acts, NOT easter as the RCC defined it as being later on!

Its the biblical Koine greek and usuage of that time that governs this, NOT modern greek nor modern understandings of easter reading back into the passage!

 

[robycop3]

Bears repeating,..

Mar 14:12
12 And the fyrste daye of swete breed when men offer ye pascall lambe his disciples sayd vnto him:where wilt thou that we goo and prepare that thou mayst eate the ester lambe?
(TyndaleBible)

Same verse, 2 words (Pascall, and Ester) used to describe the SAME LAMBE.

It's the same holiday, the same feast, the same animal, etc.
Of course, when youve been regurgitating talking points all of your Forum life, rather than actually studying...you'll choke to death on a gnat.

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.

 

[robycop3]

You'll choke to death on a gnat.

Amen.

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

 

[robycop3]

I wonder if the word "Ostern" is the root word for "Osteen" (i.e., JOEL OSTEEN)??? :BangHead:

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

 

[prophet]

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.

So, Tyndale "coined " "passover"?
And now every subsequent English Bible was expected to use only that nrwly minted word? Even though the word "Easter" was commonly used to describe "passover", prior to that point?

So, mr."I studied more than you did", explain why Tyndale used both 'Pascall', and 'Ester'in the same verse, to describe the same dinner dish!

Great non-answer, by the way.
Always so informative.

Funny, though, if Tyndale coined the word:"passover", you'd think he would have used it in the Scriptures. But he didnt. Not once. He used :"pascall"

But you knew that already, cuz you is a studyin.

 

[robycop3]

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:

So, Tyndale "coined " "passover"?
And now every subsequent English Bible was expected to use only that nrwly minted word? Even though the word "Easter" was commonly used to describe "passover", prior to that point?

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.

So, mr."I studied more than you did", explain why Tyndale used both 'Pascall', and 'Ester'in the same verse, to describe the same dinner dish!

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.

Great non-answer, by the way.
Always so informative.

Yes, to a KJVO, it IS.

Funny, though, if Tyndale coined the word:"passover", you'd think he would have used it in the Scriptures. But he didnt. Not once. He used :"pascall"

But you knew that already, cuz you is a studyin.

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.)

 

[Yeshua1]

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.)

Either the Kjv translators goofed on this passage, or else EVERY version save their has!

 

[robycop3]

Either the Kjv translators goofed on this passage, or else EVERY version save their has!

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.

 

[prophet]

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.

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.)

Oops, I see you answered your own question, before you asked it, there.

Mar 14:12
12 And the firste dai of therf looues, whanne thei offriden pask, the disciplis seyn to hym, Whidir wilt thou that we go, and make redi to thee, that thou ete the pask?
(WYC)

12 And the fyrste daye of swete breed when men offer ye pascall lambe his disciples sayd vnto him:where wilt thou that we goo and prepare that thou mayst eate the ester lambe?
(TyndaleBible)

Apparently, at some point in Anglish history, actual scholars considered these 2 words to be interchangeable, regardless of what some 20th, or 21st century theorists have postulated after the fact.

 

[robycop3]

Oops, I see you answered your own question, before you asked it, there.

Mar 14:12
12 And the firste dai of therf looues, whanne thei offriden pask, the disciplis seyn to hym, Whidir wilt thou that we go, and make redi to thee, that thou ete the pask?
(WYC)

12 And the fyrste daye of swete breed when men offer ye pascall lambe his disciples sayd vnto him:where wilt thou that we goo and prepare that thou mayst eate the ester lambe?
(TyndaleBible)

Apparently, at some point in Anglish history, actual scholars considered these 2 words to be interchangeable, regardless of what some 20th, or 21st century theorists have postulated after the fact.

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.