Christian definitives for older words and their definitions

[DHK]

Yet you are giving more credence to the negative aspect rather than give due reverence to the actuality of how true Christians worship on these two days.

That is simply WRONG.

NO, it is not wrong. It is wrong to celebrate a Christianized pagan holiday!
Christ was never born on Dec. 25; his birth was in the spring.
There is no historical evidence that the early Christians celebrated his birth.
It is a celebration that is substituted for the pagan worship of the sun-god.
They believed the sun would disappear completely, Dec.21 being the shortest day of the year.
Dec.25 was the first visible day when they could see a lengthening of the day.
On that day that celebrated: with drunkenness, orgies, and all kinds of wantonness. It was an evil immoral celebration that worshipped the sun.

The logic went this way: If pagans can have their celebration; then Christians should have a celebration too, and thus the celebration of the birth of Christ was instituted to take place in the stead of a wicked sun-god celebration. Is this type of reasoning right? Is it logical? Does the means justify the ends?

Have your pagan holidays. As for me and my house we serve the Lord.

 

[DHK]

You would like to think so in your efforts to subjugate anything I say to fit your ideas.

I gave the reference to where that site says the term comes from.

I will celebrate Easter, Christmas and any other day as a day unto the Lord with worship of the Only Wise God. care to object?

The purpose of this thread was to expose the hypocrisy when those who demand the KJV to be archaic and then turn around and demand we stick with antiquated meanings, y'know, just like YOU have.

In Acts 12:4 most other translations correctly translate the word "pascha" as "Passover." They are right and you and the KJV in this verse are wrong. It is not a justification to celebrate Easter. This reasoning is just foolishness. The word "pascha" ALWAYS means passover.

 

[Ed Edwards]

...
"Easter" is no longer understood as a pagan ritual giving homage to the goddes of fertility and love, but rather the Christian commemoration of the Resurrection of Christ.

...

But when the term "pascha" (which is translated some place either "Easter" or "Passover" was used by Harod - it meant the former.

 

[Trotter]

The name Easter comes from a pagan figure called Eastre (or Eostre) who was celebrated as the goddess of spring by the Saxons of Northern Europe.

In the Christian faith, Easter has come to mean the celebration of the resurrection of Christ three days after His crucifixion.

Because of the commercialization and pagan origins of Easter, many churches prefer to refer to it as “Resurrection Sunday.”

Good link, Harvey. I missed your link from Wikipedia, but that's OK.

I am an information sponge, but knowing where the info came from is a different matter all together. DHK is seeing it from the same place as he used Christmas as his example.

It just makes me wonder why the KJV translators, out of the 29 times pascha is used in the New Testament, chose that one single time to use "Easter"... especially knowing the origins of it.

 

[Harold Garvey]

NO, it is not wrong. It is wrong to celebrate a Christianized pagan holiday!

I didn't "paganize" it, so you're still wrong and in direct opposition to give more credence to a day over any other day by attributing it with any pagan observance.:type:

Christ was never born on Dec. 25; his birth was in the spring.

Are you now implying Christmas should replace Easter?

Why do you celebrate his Birth on Dec 25th like you said you do in that earlier post if you're going to be so dogmatic about it?

There is no historical evidence that the early Christians celebrated his birth.
It is a celebration that is substituted for the pagan worship of the sun-god.

Well just step back, raise both hands in the air and PRAISE the Lord that a pagan ritual has been replaced!

They believed the sun would disappear completely, Dec.21 being the shortest day of the year.
Dec.25 was the first visible day when they could see a lengthening of the day.
On that day that celebrated: with drunkenness, orgies, and all kinds of wantonness. It was an evil immoral celebration that worshipped the sun.

So why do you want to taint the day we celebrate our Lord's birth with past things?

I mean, can't the Lord replace the sinful activities of a group as well as with an individual?

The logic went this way: If pagans can have their celebration; then Christians should have a celebration too, and thus the celebration of the birth of Christ was instituted to take place in the stead of a wicked sun-god celebration. Is this type of reasoning right? Is it logical? Does the means justify the ends?

Have your pagan holidays. As for me and my house we serve the Lord.

Well, God did replace your sins with holy things and He is Just, so figure that one out for yourself, or do you believe the pagan rituals ought to still have precedence over anything Christian and still be in effect?

I'm applying advanced logic upon your dogmatism, and your dogmatism is like a puppy spanked with a newspaper.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Harold Garvey]

In Acts 12:4 most other translations correctly translate the word "pascha" as "Passover." They are right and you and the KJV in this verse are wrong. It is not a justification to celebrate Easter. This reasoning is just foolishness. The word "pascha" ALWAYS means passover.

Could it just be that the KJV translators knew the Passover was only an O.T. concept and making reference to it as to specify a certain time was irreverent to the Sacrifice of Christ? Yes.

I believe you just might be worshipping a language here.

many other versions use "Easter", why aren't you ATTACKING them on a regualr basis?:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Harold Garvey]

But when the term "pascha" (which is translated some place either "Easter" or "Passover" was used by Harod - it meant the former.

So you think antiquated words are better than archaic words?

 

[Harold Garvey]

Good link, Harvey. I missed your link from Wikipedia, but that's OK.

I am an information sponge, but knowing where the info came from is a different matter all together. DHK is seeing it from the same place as he used Christmas as his example.

It just makes me wonder why the KJV translators, out of the 29 times pascha is used in the New Testament, chose that one single time to use "Easter"... especially knowing the origins of it.

my thinking is more akin to the reason Herod didn't want to offend the Jews during the Passover but not attribute the time to them as giving Jews recognition and forgetting the paga ritual the Romans took part in at this same time.

If the reason goes with "Passover", then the Romans are offended, if the execution of Peter happened during the week of passover the Jews would be in an uproar and might rebel against Roman rule.

We've got to take into consideration that Herod played both sides for all he could get. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama is a protege of Herod's LOL:type:

 

[Ed Edwards]

Ed, the KJV1611 daily reader, said: // But when the term "pascha" (which is translated some place either "Easter" or "Passover" was used by Harod - it meant the former. //

So you think antiquated words are better than archaic words?

I don't see how there is any connection between your statement and mine.

 

[DHK]

Could it just be that the KJV translators knew the Passover was only an O.T. concept and making reference to it as to specify a certain time was irreverent to the Sacrifice of Christ? Yes.

I believe you just might be worshipping a language here.

many other versions use "Easter", why aren't you ATTACKING them on a regualr basis?:smilewinkgrin:

First the Passover is not simply an OT term. The word "pascha" is used 29 times in the NT. 28 times it is translated Passover by the KJV translators, and we are talking only in the NT.
Secondly, the Passover is a Jewish feast. They still practiced it then. It didn't matter whether the Christians practiced it. That is not what is being referenced in Acts 12:4.
It is totally irrelevant whether in Acts 12:4 this event was Jewish or "of Christ." It was an event. The word is "pascha." Pascha is always translated Passover. You cannot win this argument. You cannot argue against the Greek.

Every translation I have encountered also agrees with me:

Acts 12:4 And when he had taken him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to guard him; intending after the Passover to bring him forth to the people. (ASV 1901)

Acts 12:4 whom having seized he put in prison, having delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep, purposing after the Passover to bring him out to the people. (Darby’s)

Acts 12:4 When he had arrested him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four squads of four soldiers each to guard him, intending to bring him out to the people after the Passover. (WEB)

Acts 12:4 whom also having seized, he did put in prison, having delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to guard him, intending after the Passover to bring him forth to the people. (Young’s)

(Act 12:4) When he had seized him, he put him in prison, handing him over to four squads7 of soldiers to guard him. Herod8 planned9 to bring him out for public trial10 after the Passover. (NET)

(Act 12:4) When he arrested him, he put him in prison and turned him over to four squads of soldiers to guard him, planning to bring him out to the people after the Passover. (ISV)

(Act 12:4) After capturing Peter, Herod had him thrown into prison with sixteen soldiers in squads of four to guard him. Herod wanted to bring Peter to trial in front of the people after Passover. (God’s Word)

(Act 12:4) And when he had seized him, he put him in prison, delivering him over to four squads of soldiers to guard him, intending after the Passover to bring him out to the people. (ESV)

(Act 12:4) And when he had apprehended him, he cast him into prison, delivering him to four files of soldiers, to be kept, intending, after the pasch, to bring him forth to the people. (1899 Douay Reims Catholic translation)
--Even the Catholics were honest enough not to translate the word “pascha” as Easter, but at least simply to transliterate the word as “pasch,” and let the reader study or come to his own conclusion. But the Anglican KJV translator was not so. They deliberately erred.



It is time to admit the the KJV translators erred in mistranslating pascha in Acts 12:4. The word means "Passover."

 

[DHK]

I didn't "paganize" it, so you're still wrong and in direct opposition to give more credence to a day over any other day by attributing it with any pagan observance.:type:

No you didn't paganize it. Easter didn't come into existence until about 900 A.D. The fact that you celebrate a pagan holiday and try to Christianize this type of paganism is incredible. Why would you want to have anything to do with the goddess of Astarte? Why not celebrate the Resurrection instead? If you are going to celebrate the Resurrection there is no need to associate it with a pagan festival, is there. There is such a thing as condemnation by association.

Are you now implying Christmas should replace Easter?

You should have nothing to do with pagan holidays as Easter.

Why do you celebrate his Birth on Dec 25th like you said you do in that earlier post if you're going to be so dogmatic about it?

I am not dogmatic about it at all. We don't go to church on that day. It is a holiday, but to us it is more of a family day. It is not a day of worship.

Well just step back, raise both hands in the air and PRAISE the Lord that a pagan ritual has been replaced!

Don't be naive. The paganism still goes on. Satan has not disappeared. Wicca is one of the fastest growing religions.

So why do you want to taint the day we celebrate our Lord's birth with past things?

I can celebrate both the Lord's birth, and his resurrection every day of my life. I don't need a special day to celebrate his life. What do you think the gospel message is all about. You have a pitiful religion if you only think of those events one day of the year.
Furthermore why would you want to taint the resurrection and birth of the Lord with paganism and pagan rituals, as well as worldly commercialism?

I mean, can't the Lord replace the sinful activities of a group as well as with an individual?

John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

It doesn't say "with bunnies and chocolates"; nor does it say with "presents and trees." It says "in spirit and in truth."

Well, God did replace your sins with holy things and He is Just, so figure that one out for yourself, or do you believe the pagan rituals ought to still have precedence over anything Christian and still be in effect?

A religion of syncretism is no religion at all. It is condemned in the Bible. It is what the Jews tried to do and the prophets condemned them. The Jews had Jehovah as their God. They were to worship him and him alone. But they weren't content. They didn't want to forsake him completely. They wanted to worship Baal as well as Jehovah. It was a syncrestic religion that they came up with which Amos condemns them for.

So you can take your worship of Christ and your worship of the pagan rites of Christmas and/or Easter and come up with a syncrestic religion. But know this: God hates such, for he desires a pure religion, undefiled--one that is holy and not compromised by paganism.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

I think the term Easter is simply a particular English term for the celebration of resurrection of Christ. That isn't exactly the same as the Passover btw. If the name ever had any roots in a pagan festival it has long since passed being important.

Even the idea that Easter is formerly a pagan festival (or even the name of a pagan god) is thinner than you think. Please have a look at this article:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/bytopic/holidays/easterborrowedholiday.html?start=1

Let me know if you think the author is KJVO.....

A.F.

 

[DHK]

I think the term Easter is simply a particular English term for the celebration of resurrection of Christ. That isn't exactly the same as the Passover btw. If the name ever had any roots in a pagan festival it has long since passed being important.

Even the idea that Easter is formerly a pagan festival (or even the name of a pagan god) is thinner than you think. Please have a look at this article:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/bytopic/holidays/easterborrowedholiday.html?start=1

Let me know if you think the author is KJVO.....

A.F.

No, I doubt that the author is KJVO, but he has to do a lot of twisting of history to arrive at the conclusion that he does. It seems as though he starts with a premise: that Easter is a Christian festival, and then sets out to prove it, no matter what history says. Paschal never means Easter despite what he claims, for example. The fact that other Europeans use the name Easter has no bearing on the subject. Even his Greek eisogesis of the word was wrong. Easter comes from the worship of the goddess of Astarte, which he failed to mention altogether.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

Did you read all three pages?

Actually, the idea that Easter = Astarte has little support.

Perhaps you put too much confidence in Hislop (The Two Babylons).

A.F.

 

[Harold Garvey]

Ed, the KJV1611 daily reader, said: // But when the term "pascha" (which is translated some place either "Easter" or "Passover" was used by Harod - it meant the former. //



I don't see how there is any connection between your statement and mine.

Of course not, you like to put the KJV down and don't realize "Passover" is a word of antiquity.

Easter is a relevent and modern term. It does not mean what so many attribute it with, never did actually.

Easter DOES mean the day in which we give the most credence to the Resurrection of Christ.

Every day is a day to celebrate His Resurrection as a Christian, but Easter is the most prominent.

 

[Harold Garvey]

First the Passover is not simply an OT term. The word "pascha" is used 29 times in the NT. 28 times it is translated Passover by the KJV translators, and we are talking only in the NT.
Secondly, the Passover is a Jewish feast. They still practiced it then. It didn't matter whether the Christians practiced it. That is not what is being referenced in Acts 12:4.
It is totally irrelevant whether in Acts 12:4 this event was Jewish or "of Christ." It was an event. The word is "pascha." Pascha is always translated Passover. You cannot win this argument. You cannot argue against the Greek.

Every translation I have encountered also agrees with me:

--Even the Catholics were honest enough not to translate the word “pascha” as Easter, but at least simply to transliterate the word as “pasch,” and let the reader study or come to his own conclusion. But the Anglican KJV translator was not so. They deliberately erred.

Ok, so even the catholic bible agrees with the protestant. Glad I'm Anabaptist!:thumbs:

It is time to admit the the KJV translators erred in mistranslating pascha in Acts 12:4. The word means "Passover."

Why? Do you demand we recognize the former things over the present ?

There is just reason and verifiable cause to allow "pasca" to now mean "Easter". Why? Because the Book of Acts is written AFTER His Resurrection.

Why didn't you include the Tyndale? The Geneva? They both have "Easter".

You expect everyone to bow down to what you agree with? I really don't find them agreeing WITH you, but that YOU disagree with others.

easter:Main Entry: Eas·ter
Pronunciation: \ˈē-stər\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English estre, from Old English ēastre; akin to Old High German ōstarun (plural) Easter, Old English ēast east
Date: before 12th century
: a feast that commemorates Christ's resurrection and is observed with variations of date due to different calendars on the first Sunday after the paschal full moon

Seems Merriam Webster agrees with the English I speak, yet YOU keep demanding we al start speaking koine Greek before we can know what the BIBLE ALREADY SAYS IN ENGLISH.:godisgood::sleeping_2::godisgood:

 

[Harold Garvey]

Did you read all three pages?

Actually, the idea that Easter = Astarte has little support.

Perhaps you put too much confidence in Hislop (The Two Babylons).

A.F.

I agree.

I can't understand why some one remains so gullible when the facts are presented to them.

The relating of "easter" to astarte is based upon a dogmatism known to be rooted in suspicion.

When one is confronted with the truth they must raise suspicions to counter the arguement against them. It is one of the most deviant practices known to man.

 

[DHK]

Ok, so even the catholic bible agrees with the protestant. Glad I'm Anabaptist!:thumbs:



Why? Do you demand we recognize the former things over the present ?

There is just reason and verifiable cause to allow "pasca" to now mean "Easter". Why? Because the Book of Acts is written AFTER His Resurrection.

Why didn't you include the Tyndale? The Geneva? They both have "Easter".

You expect everyone to bow down to what you agree with? I really don't find them agreeing WITH you, but that YOU disagree with others.

easter:Main Entry: Eas·ter
Pronunciation: \ˈē-stər\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English estre, from Old English ēastre; akin to Old High German ōstarun (plural) Easter, Old English ēast east
Date: before 12th century
: a feast that commemorates Christ's resurrection and is observed with variations of date due to different calendars on the first Sunday after the paschal full moon

Seems Merriam Webster agrees with the English I speak, yet YOU keep demanding we al start speaking koine Greek before we can know what the BIBLE ALREADY SAYS IN ENGLISH.

The verse in question is Acts 12:4, the only time in the Bible where "Pascha" is translated "Easter." Luke wrote the Book of Acts, and he wrote it in the Greek language. But then I suppose you think he used Merriam Webster's dictionary.

 

[Trotter]

Of course not, you like to put the KJV down and don't realize "Passover" is a word of antiquity.

Actually, "Passover" is very much current and continues to be observed by Jews all over the world. It's meaning is still the same for the Jews, and even more symbolic for Messianic Jews today.

Why? Do you demand we recognize the former things over the present ?

There is just reason and verifiable cause to allow "pascha" to now mean "Easter". Why? Because the Book of Acts is written AFTER His Resurrection.

Yes, Acts was written after the resurrection, but it was written before Easter ever existed.

The New Testament was written in the Greek of the day, which was Koine Greek. When Acts was written, Luke used the word "Pascha", which meant "Passover" at that time. It doesn't matter what Herod's aim was, he would have also used "pascha" to name the day and/or time (both the actual day and the festival were called "Pascha").

So, since "pascha" was used, which could only mean "passover" at the time it was written no matter who used the word, why would it suddenly grow a new meaning 15 centuries later? Did God go back and change the word? No, it still reads "pascha" in the manuscripts, as well as in ALL the compiled Greek source texts, be they Majority or not.

Does what the Tyndale, Bishops, and KJV (Geneva uses "Passeouer" according to e-Sword) use supersede what the Greek, Geneva, ASV, Darby, ESV, NASB, NIV, NJB, NKJV, RSV, Rotherman, Webster, and YLT all say? Before you say that the KJV has stood for 400 years, remember that the Geneva is older, and that the Greek is older than them all.

Care to explain?

 

[Mexdeaf]

Never thought I'd see a KJVO supporting a "modern" rendering of a Greek word over the actual meaning. May wonders never cease.